Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:EKaYg.1277$UJ2.895@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS
they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making
more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child
with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the
situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time
there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops,
NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Why? Why do you see this as fair? Why is it fair that the NCP pays
more
when the CP decides to quit work and be a stay at home mom? Why should
she
get a bigger chunk of his paycheck because she chooses not to work and
therefore her income goes down? I don't understand youir reasoning on
this.


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I don't think that spouses of either NCP or CP should be considered,
unless
the CP (or NCP) is totally supported by the spouse. Then something
needs
to
be done.

But then, I don't think the courts should ever be a part of any of it
unless
there is not way for the parents to work it out. I think most people
would
be able to work it out themselves if the system did not interfere the
way
it
does.

Simple solution: Since each parent is 50% of the total amount of
"parent",
then each one has the child for exactly 50% of the time. But guess what,
"family court" judges are not bright enough to figure this out.

And I have always felt that 50/50 custody, pay your own expenses should be
the default. Except when there are extenuating circumstances.

Indeed. By the way, what happened to our neighborhood feminazi posters? You
know, the ones who say 50/50 is not fair.............

Rags wrote:

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
roups.com...

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
legroups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)


To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support

check

regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting

the

parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than

a

parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.


...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang. But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?




Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:


Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?


My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Best regards,
Rags.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

The only correct way is to establish a base minimum and divide by two.
I favor what the states pay for foster care as the base.

pandora wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:SiUUg.12141$N4.7462@clgrps12...

pandora wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
thlink.net...



A couple of decades ago, most men and women alike supported equality.


Bull****.

Justice therefore dictates that if a woman
makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to
term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable
for 21 years of support. Or, put another way,
autonomous women making independent decisions
about their lives should not expect men to
finance their choice...


He had an opportunity for HIS choice to not be a parent. It is his problem
that he didn't. (ANd obviously, if SHE is pregnant, then he already made
his choice). Equality.

apparently "equality minded" women don't agree with you Marg...quelle
surprise !

If women have the right to choose if they become
parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
connection between legalizing abortion for women
and ending of paternity suits for men.

Only in the small minds of bitter men who don't want to act in a responsible
manner. Sheesh!

Also in the mind of the (then) President of the National Organization
For Women...and many other equality minded women as well, too bad you're
not included in their ranks...

I taught my sons to be responsibile when they were 13.

I'm sure you've made them into great doormats...

What happened to YOUR teaching?

I was always taught that equality meant that individuals and groups
ended up having the same legal rights and abilities...seems you follow
the "Animal Farm" concept of "equality"...everyone is equal but women
should be just a little *more* equal that men...

Oh, you didn't listen because you believed it wasn't YOUR problem.

When both men and women were *equally* constrained by law, a pregnancy
certainly *WAS* a joint problem for BOTH...

Well, think again, buster, it is your problem too.

When the law changed and it was NO LONGER a problem for the women,
fairness and justice dictated that it should no longer have been a
problem for the man...to bad we don't live in a fair and just society...

Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women.
It would only eliminate their expectation of having those
choices financed by men...

No, it would allow men to act irresponsibly (which many already do) and get
away with it (which our society doesn't want to see happen).

You know, that's pretty much the same pitch that Elizabeth
Caddy=-Stanton and Susan B. Anthony made in the successful crusade to
have abortion outlawed...are you proposing that we go back to those
days...are you *really* an anti-abortionist Marg ?
[i]
These are quotes from Karen DeCrow, president of NOW and are an example
an example of what was coming out of NOW in the 70's while NOW was still
an organization dedicated to equality and egaltarianism...contrast this
with what is coming out of NOW today and you'll understand what he
means...

n the last twenty-five years, [the idea of]
man as "the enemy" has certainly emerged;
the separatist wing of the feminist movement
is definitely present, no question about that.
But in the early days, I think sexism was
considered more a general societal problem..

This quote, from the late 90's, again by DeCrow, says it all...

Not at all, in fact *most* young women...and more than a few older
ex-feminist, are so disgruntled that they don't want to be know as or
considered to be "feminists" at all

Possibly. That isn't my problem. As I've mentioned before, I don't see
giant hordes of women standing in the streets and stating they are NOT
equal, they do NOT want to be eligible to vote, they do NOT want good paying
jobs and they do NOT want to go to college, nor do they wish for no fault
divorce to be repealed. Hey, it would seem to be the bitter bois who are
saying all that. Gee, I wonder why. Of course, many people already realize
that *privileged* men don't wish to give up their special perks merely for
owning a dick.

No, most women are quite pleased with the position of legal and social
superiority that feminism has won for them I'm sure. I wonder if they
will continue to be "pleased" however, as more and more men withdraw for
women and from plural society and women have to start shouldering a
greater share of the dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that have to be done
to keep the civilization that makes this "superiority" possible for
women...it's one thing to crow about "equality" (WHICH IS REALLY
SUPERIORITY), it's altogether another thing to have to do the grunt jobs
to maintain it...

Really ? Take a look at the "membership" numbers claimed by NOW today
and how many were "claimed" 10 years ago...it tells the story nicely I
think :-)

Only to an idiot, I think.

NOW "claims" membership that is less than half of what they were
claiming 10 years ago...

Good. That means that your government believes that equality has been
reached. I don't have a rpoblem with that, EXCEPT that I believe in another
20 years they 'll need to reinstitute such as the bitter bois like yourself
will begin firing women (or not hiring them in the first place),

Probably won't happen, I agree that many employers won't hire a 30
something or 40 something woman because they have some "entitlement"
issues and why would you ever want to hire a disruptive trouble maker ?
But the younger women coming along seem to have a much better
attitude...hell, most of them don't even get upset over a risqué
joke...and are often known to tell them...quite a change from the bitter
girlies of a few years ago... ;-)

....Ken

"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually
apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support
check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of
the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent
can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the
best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about
letting
the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference
to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've
been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better
than
a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are
the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang.
But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You
might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts
that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you
care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a
free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?



Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

Correction: One's personal income is not the business of "child support"
court. In fact, there is no reason for such court to exist in the first
place.


My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:

Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and
expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?

My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

Keyword: inconsistent. I guess the difference between you and I is that you
have no problem with the courts allocating other people's money whereas I
DO! What you have described, regarding your issue with the courts, is not
unlike what virtually ALL (NCP) fathers experience. If you agree to the
kourts controlling their money, then it follows that you should have no
problem with them controlling YOUR money.


As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for.

If an existing amount of "child support" is sufficient to care for a
child, then what is the purpose of increasing it?

If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Oh my!


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $.

Big deal. They're STILL extorting money from him.

The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Sadly, it does.


Best regards,
Rags.

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:5FwYg.23041$H7.7532@edtnps82...
pandora wrote:

"Ken Chaddock" wrote in message
news:SiUUg.12141$N4.7462@clgrps12...

pandora wrote:


"Phil" wrote in message
thlink.net...



A couple of decades ago, most men and women alike supported equality.


Bull****.

Justice therefore dictates that if a woman
makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to
term, and the biological father does not, and
cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable
for 21 years of support. Or, put another way,
autonomous women making independent decisions
about their lives should not expect men to
finance their choice...


He had an opportunity for HIS choice to not be a parent. It is his
problem
that he didn't. (ANd obviously, if SHE is pregnant, then he already
made
his choice). Equality.

apparently "equality minded" women don't agree with you Marg...quelle
surprise !

Then they're wrong. I consider what I wrote to be equality given the
situations individuals find themselves in. Men don't get to make decisions
about abortion or gestating as that situation never happens to or in their
bodies. One can only make decisions regarding one's own body, not
another's.

If women have the right to choose if they become
parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a
connection between legalizing abortion for women
and ending of paternity suits for men.

Only in the small minds of bitter men who don't want to act in a
responsible
manner. Sheesh!

Also in the mind of the (then) President of the National Organization
For Women...and many other equality minded women as well, too bad you're
not included in their ranks...

I wouldn't consider them to be equality minded then but rather women who
wish to give men special perks. One might wonder why they would do that. I
don't.

I taught my sons to be responsibile when they were 13.

I'm sure you've made them into great doormats...

They are far from doormats although they DO understand responsibility and
don't push their responsibility onto others.

What happened to YOUR teaching?

I was always taught that equality meant that individuals and groups
ended up having the same legal rights and abilities...

Then you were taught wrong or you understood the lesson wrong. Everyone has
the same rights under the law. A man can have an abortion should he need
one. However, no man has ever needed one since men don't get pregnant. And
the law cannot given people abilities they don't have.

seems you follow
the "Animal Farm" concept of "equality"...everyone is equal but women
should be just a little *more* equal that men...

Not at all. However, only women get pregnant. Nature did that. Laws
cannot make that inequity *equal*..

Oh, you didn't listen because you believed it wasn't YOUR problem.

When both men and women were *equally* constrained by law, a pregnancy
certainly *WAS* a joint problem for BOTH...

Never was that way since that is an impossibility. Men are never
constrained by a pregnancy as they don't need to do anything once someone is
pregnant; it isn't in their body.

Well, think again, buster, it is your problem too.

When the law changed and it was NO LONGER a problem for the women,
fairness and justice dictated that it should no longer have been a
problem for the man...to bad we don't live in a fair and just society...

People are responsible for their born children, nothing more, nothing less.
And we DO live in a fair and just society, you just wish to ignore it since
you wish to be an irresponsible male. And your heavy belief in pregnancy no
longer being a problem for women is duly noted.

Giving men their own choices would not deny choices to women.
It would only eliminate their expectation of having those
choices financed by men...

No, it would allow men to act irresponsibly (which many already do) and
get
away with it (which our society doesn't want to see happen).

You know, that's pretty much the same pitch that Elizabeth
Caddy=-Stanton and Susan B. Anthony made in the successful crusade to
have abortion outlawed...are you proposing that we go back to those
days...are you *really* an anti-abortionist Marg ?

In a way, yes I am. I have never been an advocate of abortion. I do,
however, believe there should be NO LAW regarding abortion at all. Partly
because of assholes like you, but partly because it isn't anyone's business
but the pregnant person's what they choose. There should be NO LAW
regarding abortion whatsoever; either for or against. And in truth, we are
there now since the morning after pill is available over the counter and no
one need even KNOW FOR ANY CERTAINTY, just like all the very real
miscarriages that occur to women in their lifetimes, whether or not an
individual woman was pregnant. You see, I don't believe in laws regarding
abortion as they are merely the last vestiges of CONTROL that controling men
and weak women put their faith in.
[i]
These are quotes from Karen DeCrow, president of NOW and are an example
an example of what was coming out of NOW in the 70's while NOW was still
an organization dedicated to equality and egaltarianism...contrast this
with what is coming out of NOW today and you'll understand what he
means...

n the last twenty-five years, [the idea of]
man as "the enemy" has certainly emerged;
the separatist wing of the feminist movement
is definitely present, no question about that.
But in the early days, I think sexism was
considered more a general societal problem..

This quote, from the late 90's, again by DeCrow, says it all...

Not at all, in fact *most* young women...and more than a few older
ex-feminist, are so disgruntled that they don't want to be know as or
considered to be "feminists" at all

Possibly. That isn't my problem. As I've mentioned before, I don't see
giant hordes of women standing in the streets and stating they are NOT
equal, they do NOT want to be eligible to vote, they do NOT want good
paying
jobs and they do NOT want to go to college, nor do they wish for no
fault
divorce to be repealed. Hey, it would seem to be the bitter bois who
are
saying all that. Gee, I wonder why. Of course, many people already
realize
that *privileged* men don't wish to give up their special perks merely
for
owning a dick.

No, most women are quite pleased with the position of legal and social
superiority that feminism has won for them I'm sure. I wonder if they
will continue to be "pleased" however, as more and more men withdraw for
women and from plural society and women have to start shouldering a
greater share of the dirty, nasty, dangerous jobs that have to be done
to keep the civilization that makes this "superiority" possible for
women...

Already doing that, sonnyboi. Interesting that you would consider doing
nasty and dirty jobs to be some kind of *threat* that will make women scurry
back to the bedroom on their knees. Keep up the threats and even MORE women
will realize that small minded men are not worth the bother. Even if they
have to stay alone, that is preferable to living with and catering to a
dickhead.

it's one thing to crow about "equality" (WHICH IS REALLY
SUPERIORITY), it's altogether another thing to have to do the grunt jobs
to maintain it...

Done and done. Now what? You'll stop whining and complaining now? Good.


Really ? Take a look at the "membership" numbers claimed by NOW today
and how many were "claimed" 10 years ago...it tells the story nicely I
think :-)

Only to an idiot, I think.

NOW "claims" membership that is less than half of what they were
claiming 10 years ago...

So? Means nothing to me as I never joined and I know plenty of women who
didn't either. You see, it was a MOVEMENT toward equality they were
interested in and not a club membership. Perhaps little dicks find club
membership to be important, but many women don't. They just DO that which
they DO and have always done and keep on going.

Good. That means that your government believes that equality has been
reached. I don't have a rpoblem with that, EXCEPT that I believe in
another
20 years they 'll need to reinstitute such as the bitter bois like
yourself
will begin firing women (or not hiring them in the first place),

Probably won't happen, I agree that many employers won't hire a 30
something or 40 something woman because they have some "entitlement"
issues and why would you ever want to hire a disruptive trouble maker ?

It has never stopped anyone from hiring male trouble makers so I don't see
your point. As to entitlement, no one has ever asked for or demanded such.
Only bitter bois like you have claimed that whenever some female has even
raised her head. We're used to such as you. Two steps forward and one step
back. It happens.

But the younger women coming along seem to have a much better
attitude...hell, most of them don't even get upset over a risqué
joke...and are often known to tell them...quite a change from the bitter
girlies of a few years ago... ;-)

Just wait until they have some experience with such as you and they will
change. It's inevitable. Once they realize that they do NOT need to give
up any of their equality in order to date/mate/breed and that most men will
**** whatever they can get, they will realize that there is more to life
than merely attracting a male at any cost. Some won't, that's true, but
there have always been stupid women as well as stupid men. Just wait,
however, for the smart women to realize that what they are giving up
(equality) in order to appear attractive is way more than they'll ever get
in return. Just wait for THAT backlash. It will be a blast!

CWQ



...Ken

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Rags wrote:

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
roups.com...

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
legroups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)


To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply
a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support

check

regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent
can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting

the

parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've
been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better
than

a

parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are
the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.


...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang.
But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You
might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts
that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you
care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a
free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?




Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:


Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and
expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?


My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Best regards,
Rags.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

The only correct way is to establish a base minimum and divide by two.

Which equates to no money changing hands.. But if there is no transfer of
cash, then something MUST be wrong..................

I favor what the states pay for foster care as the base.

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually
apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support
check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of
the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent
can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the
best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about
letting
the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference
to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've
been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better
than
a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are
the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang.
But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You
might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts
that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you
care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a
free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?



Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

Correction: One's personal income is not the business of "child support"
court. In fact, there is no reason for such court to exist in the first
place.

I understand your issue with this. As you stated above, it is the same
issue that I have as SD. Again the difference being that I am not a
party to the case. If I am not a party to the case, my $ should not
be considered. Parent'w whether they want to be or not, are a party to
supporting and providing for their kids.


My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:

Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and
expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?

My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

Keyword: inconsistent. I guess the difference between you and I is that you
have no problem with the courts allocating other people's money whereas I
DO! What you have described, regarding your issue with the courts, is not
unlike what virtually ALL (NCP) fathers experience. If you agree to the
kourts controlling their money, then it follows that you should have no
problem with them controlling YOUR money.

I understand your perspective on this. But, what about the kids?

I think that the differences is that my relationship to the situation
is totally voluntary and the courts have informed me repeatedly that I
am not a party to the case. Once a child is born, I believe that a
certain amount of the joint income of the parents should be used to
support the child.




As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for.

If an existing amount of "child support" is sufficient to care for a
child, then what is the purpose of increasing it?

My answer to the above question is to provide the best possible care
for the child and to prepare the child for the future. Why should a
child have to live at a lower standard of living than their parents?
If Mom gets a raise, the kid gets a raise. If Dad gets a raise, the
kid gets a raise. I think the aggrivation lies with the NCP not being
able to control what the CP does with the increased CS. If courts must
be involved in a CP/NCP situation, I support strict accountability from
the CP on where the money goes. Annual audits should be required with
financial penalties applied if the CP miss spends the money or cannot
support where the money was used.


If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Oh my!


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $.

Big deal. They're STILL extorting money from him.

Again, I understand the frustration. However, the courts only set the
CS level, they don't spend the money. The money should only be spent
for the interests of the child. (school taxes, clothes, food,
utilities, housing, etc.....) CS should have to account for where the
money goes.


The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Sadly, it does.


Best regards,
Rags.


Chris,

Let me try to clarify a bit more. I have a big problem with the
courts telling people what to do with thier money. However, I have a
bigger problem with parents who don't provide for their children. I
have stated in previous postings that IMO the focus should be on the
kids. CPs who keep the NCP from the kids are wrong. NCPs who don't
engage with their kids are wrong. CPs/NCPs who do not provide the best
situation their resources will allow to provide environmentally,
emotionally, morally or financially for their kids are wrong.
Sometimes a third party has to step in to ensure the kids are being
provided for addequately by the parents. As poor as they do at this
job, the courts are what our society has evolved to address this issue.

If all parents did the best they were capable of for their kids and
would put their kids first in unfortunate custody/visitation/ support
cases then the courts would not have to be involved.

As far as extorting money from NCP in my SSs case:

I gladly and voluntarily spend far more than the total formulated CS
level of $800/mo (NCP pays $350/mo) supporting my SS. We live in a
better, more expensive school district because we want the best
education we can provide for him. He will likely attend boarding
school for high school begining next year because from our observations
government schools are more interested in obtaining federal dollars
than educating kids. We drive newer, safer cars because we drive he
and his friends on a regular basis. We provide very expensive
medical, vision and dental care far above what is covered by insurance.
(Bio Dad has not payed his 50% of uncovered med expenses in more than
12 years though he has been repeatedly billed for them). We invest
significant resources to provide for his college education. All of
this I ( and his mom) gladly provide predominantly out of our
professional incomes and NCP contributes to in the form of CS.
Interstingly while NCP complains and fights CS, he has plenty of
resources to spend on gadgets for his low rider and purchasing rare
game cards.


If ALL parents would provide voluntarily for their kids, there would be
no need for the CS courts to exist. As frustrating as the whole
NCP/CP/family court system is, some parents must be forcably motivated
to provide for their kids.

The kids should not be the victims in these situations. I would love
to hear your perspective on how we could ensure that CP/NCPs provide
for their kids and keep the courts in the business of ruling on law
rather than making it.

Regards,
Rags

teachrmama wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Why? Why do you see this as fair? Why is it fair that the NCP pays more
when the CP decides to quit work and be a stay at home mom? Why should she
get a bigger chunk of his paycheck because she chooses not to work and
therefore her income goes down? I don't understand youir reasoning on this.

Teach,

If one parent does not have an income, that parent should have an
income attributed to them for the purpose of CS calculation. This
attributed income should be at minimum wage or at the customary level
comiserate with that individuals skill set. That information is easily
determined through research. In our case, NCP failed to provide income
information for a CS hearing. The CS office contacted my wife (CP) to
enquire about NCPs income. It had been more than 10 years since they
had been in the same house hold. She had no idea about his recent
rarnings level. We obtained a copy of his Journeyman Plumbers License
and the income distribution for plumbers in the county in which he
lives and submitted that information to the CS court recommending the
courts apply the median hourly income for plumbers in that county. The
range was ~$15/hr through ~35$/hr. We recommended that the courts
apply an hourly rate of $25/hr. If I had not been layed off from my
job. We would not have engaged in that round of conflict.

Many jurisdicitons already apply this method. Some do not. If all of
the parents envolved in these cases focused on the kids, family law
courts would not need to exist.

In the case you have outlined in your previouse postings, the child's
mother should be in prison for kidnapping, all of her assets should
transfer in trust to the child, and you and your husband should be
raising her with her half siblings in your home.

IMHO, of course.

Regards,
Rags






What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I don't think that spouses of either NCP or CP should be considered, unless
the CP (or NCP) is totally supported by the spouse. Then something needs to
be done.

But then, I don't think the courts should ever be a part of any of it unless
there is not way for the parents to work it out. I think most people would
be able to work it out themselves if the system did not interfere the way it
does.

Agreed.

Regards again,
Rags

P Fritz wrote:
Rags wrote:

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
roups.com...

Chris wrote:

"Rags" wrote in message
legroups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)


To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support

check

regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting

the

parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than

a

parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.


...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang. But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?




Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:


Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?


My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Best regards,
Rags.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth.

You may be right. I like most on this forum have my biases based on my
own experiences with family law courts. I try to focus on the best
interests of the kids as an attempt to stay in the center (between CP
and NCP) on this issue. BTW. I usually don't sit the fence on
anything.

The only correct way is to establish a base minimum and divide by two.
I favor what the states pay for foster care as the base.

Fritz,

That of course would be the simple way to address the issue. However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.

Regards,
Rags

"Rags" wrote
...............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in
intact homes.
==