Child Support - When Does Child Support End?

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 1:35 am, "teachrmama" wrote:

What I find disgusting about it is that the advocates for the lifestyle
of
the children have such a narrow view. Nobody else counts--just the
specific
children considered by the CS order. No other human beinf breathing air
makes any difference compared the need for a lifestyle for that child.
Witness those advocating sports and school pictures

Do you just make this stuff up?!? Or do you intentionally
exagerate?

No, I don NOT make it up. The advocates for lifestyle CS, rather than basic
needs CS, say that the chuld of the order has a right to a specific
lifestyle. You do understand that that is what the system says, right?
Think about it, Paula. Nobody came to me and told me that my children "had
a right to" after school sports and that I had better pony up and provide
them. But they did figure an amount for such things into the CS they charge
my husband for his oldest daughter. Because she "has a right to" such
things.

Try it this way. If I handed you a stack of pictures of children and asked
you to divide them into piles: Those who have a right to after school
sports and those who do not, what would you do? Would you be able to do it?
I wouldn't. But the system does.

If I handed you a stack of pictures individuals, of men, women, and
children, and asked you to divide them into piles by priority, of those who
deserve a warm, comfortable place to live, food to eat, and clothing to
wear, how would you divide them?

If, in my classroom, I treated all girls as good, unless they did something
extremely bad, and all boys as misvhievous, unless they did somethign
extremely good, would you want your child in my classroom? But that is what
the system does. "NCPs need to be forced, because they *will not* do the
right thing otherwise." Most of the children in my classroom are well
behaved, some need just a bit of guidance, and very few need sterner
discipline. Adults are the same way.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after their
rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just really
doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's life--I
don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who did not
even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the time he
could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a minor, so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to where she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to bring her to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$ left for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order says she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS was
established, except to use the very limited savings we did have to go
meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck in
situations where their child is deprived of both father and any help with
the basics. I do believe that the basics should be required--comfortable
basics, not bare bones. It isn't you or any specific person I have an issue
with. It is the hydra-headed system that has too much power and not nearly
enough accountability.

"teachrmama" wrote in

basics, not bare bones. It isn't you or any specific person I have an
issue with. It is the hydra-headed system that has too much power and not
nearly enough accountability.

Amen!

Any government agency that has any direct control over it's citizens is a
really bad idea.
Using the prison system to force the will of the government is
unconstitutional.

"Paula" wrote in

Do you just make this stuff up?!? Or do you intentionally
exagerate?

I see how many families are effected by the high cost of gas and oil, just
an extra $60 a month sets them back and forces them to make cuts elsewhere.

Imagine if they had to pay a monthly $600 tax imposed by the government and
threatened with prison if they couldn't afford to pay it?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message


...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after their
rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just really
doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's life--I
don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who did not
even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then
establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the time he
could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a minor,
so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to where
she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to bring her to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$ left for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order says she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS was
established, except to use the very limited savings we did have to go
meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck in
situations where their child is deprived of both father and any help with
the basics. I do believe that the basics should be required--comfortable
basics, not bare bones.

You also believe in having a "child support" system, and therein lies the
problem. Who ought to define "comfortable basics" and why?

It isn't you or any specific person I have an issue
with. It is the hydra-headed system that has too much power and not nearly
enough accountability.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message


...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after their
rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just really
doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's life--I
don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who did not
even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then
establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the time he
could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a minor,
so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to where
she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to bring her
to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$ left
for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order says
she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS was
established, except to use the very limited savings we did have to go
meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck in
situations where their child is deprived of both father and any help with
the basics. I do believe that the basics should be required--comfortable
basics, not bare bones.

You also believe in having a "child support" system, and therein lies the
problem. Who ought to define "comfortable basics" and why?

Foster care is supposed to pay for basics. How about taking the amount paid
in the area for foster care and splitting it in half, each parent required
to pay 50%. I do believe in boht parents being responsible for their
choices. But I also believe that unmarried parents should be dealt with
differently than divorced parents.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
et...

"Paula" wrote in

Do you just make this stuff up?!? Or do you intentionally
exagerate?

I see how many families are effected by the high cost of gas and oil, just
an extra $60 a month sets them back and forces them to make cuts
elsewhere.

Imagine if they had to pay a monthly $600 tax imposed by the government
and
threatened with prison if they couldn't afford to pay it?

SIX HUNDRED BUCKS? You MUST be exaggerating!

"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
news:7f5aef0e-591b-437d-b0b5-f971ff998312
@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message


news:ad17acb7-2eea-49c3-95a3-

...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after
their rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just really
doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's
life--I don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who
did not even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then
establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the
time he could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a
minor,
so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to
where
she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to bring
her to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$
left for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order
says she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS was
established, except to use the very limited savings we did have
to go meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck in
situations where their child is deprived of both father and any help
with the basics. I do believe that the basics should be
required--comfortable basics, not bare bones.

You also believe in having a "child support" system, and therein lies
the problem. Who ought to define "comfortable basics" and why?

Foster care is supposed to pay for basics. How about taking the
amount paid in the area for foster care and splitting it in half, each
parent required to pay 50%. I do believe in boht parents being
responsible for their choices. But I also believe that unmarried
parents should be dealt with differently than divorced parents.


Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their children?

"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

"DB" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws as
they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a father,
at least not post-conception.