It's "for the children"

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

State Appeals Courts and State Supreme Courts have consistently ruled
against that line of thinking. In my state the right for a parent to seek
support for their minor children has been in place since 1889. I doubt
you
could find many people to claim that is bad public policy. I also doubt
you
could find many people who would call child support "extortion."

It's extortion when the rates exceeds the child's real need and when the NCP
is financially incapable of paying the high rates due to unemployment, under
employment and general bad luck.

I doubt many reasonable people would agree with the policies in place?
Problem is, reasonable people don't know anything about this system until
they are directly affected by it.

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tZuug.77213$ZW3.31482@dukeread04...


Moon Shyne wrote:

wrote in message
egroups.com...


Moon Shyne wrote:


"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...


Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent.


Read the court order. It will tell you who the funds get dirbursed to
(the custodial parent) - they then have the fiduciary responsibility to
manage the funds.

Really?

"Responsibility" implies that something bad will happen to them if they
don't.

Other than being convicted criminal child neglect if they are VERY bad,
what will happen to a CP who doesn't spend the money on the child?


I did not state anywhere that I was an attorney, nor that I was keeper of
all the answers.

I have to admit, that's more of an answer than the chirping crickets I
expected from you... but it had the same amount of substance.

- Ron ^*^

Moon Shyne wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is "your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you who the funds get dirbursed to (the
custodial parent) - they then have the fiduciary responsibility to manage
the funds.

A fiduciary responsibility is not a legal right. It is a legal
responsibility. So by your own logic, you are wrong. Ever here of
breach of fiduciary duty? Besides, a fiduciary responsibility that is
never enforced is no responsibility at all. I doubt that any states
characterize the relationship this way.

If child support was the right of the custodial
parent, it would be called alimony. If you lose the child, the child
support goes with the child. Some "right."

You're attempting to compare apples and figs here.

No, you cannot understand the difference. The right is vested in the
child, not in the custodial parent.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd. It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is
"your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you who the funds get dirbursed to
(the
custodial parent) - they then have the fiduciary responsibility to manage
the funds.

A fiduciary responsibility is not a legal right. It is a legal
responsibility. So by your own logic, you are wrong.

I disagree. The parent with the court order that they receive CS has the
legal right to it.

THEN, they have the fiduciary responsibility.

2 separate things.

Ever here of
breach of fiduciary duty?

Yup.

Besides, a fiduciary responsibility that is
never enforced is no responsibility at all. I doubt that any states
characterize the relationship this way.

All of which has nothing to do with the court order that gives them the
legal right to receive the child support.


If child support was the right of the custodial
parent, it would be called alimony. If you lose the child, the child
support goes with the child. Some "right."

You're attempting to compare apples and figs here.

No, you cannot understand the difference. The right is vested in the
child, not in the custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you to whom the child support is paid.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept, in
order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a
maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax intercept,
yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed against
the
children's intented CS amount".

The difference is the CS collection companies keep upwards of 30% of the
total they collect.

So it isn't the keeping of some money that you object to, it's simply the
amount that you object to?


The states, like your state, charge a small processing fee. Your state's
fee is 10% of any tax intercept amount collected over $10 up to a maximum
of
$25. That means the processing fee is in the $1-$25 range. That's not
much
considering they go after both Federal and state tax refunds.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept, in
order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a
maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of
them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax intercept,
yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed
against
the
children's intented CS amount".

The difference is the CS collection companies keep upwards of 30% of the
total they collect.

So it isn't the keeping of some money that you object to, it's simply the
amount that you object to?

I think that is a good summary of what I am saying. Some states charge a
modest fee to set up a CS account. Some states keep a processing fee on
garnishments. Some states charge a modest fee to do tax intercepts. Some
states allow for a modest pass-through of CS on welfare cases while other
states keep 100% of the CS paid.

Those instances of state's recovering a portion of their incremental costs
are a lot different than a private CS collection company keeping a
percentage of every dollar they collect as a finders fee. And that is what
I object to because they are preying on the misfortune of CP's and not
allowing the full amount collected to be applied to the amount owed by the
NCP's.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept, in
order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a
maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of
them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax intercept,
yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed
against
the
children's intented CS amount".

The difference is the CS collection companies keep upwards of 30% of
the
total they collect.

So it isn't the keeping of some money that you object to, it's simply the
amount that you object to?

I think that is a good summary of what I am saying. Some states charge a
modest fee to set up a CS account. Some states keep a processing fee on
garnishments. Some states charge a modest fee to do tax intercepts. Some
states allow for a modest pass-through of CS on welfare cases while other
states keep 100% of the CS paid.

Those instances of state's recovering a portion of their incremental costs
are a lot different than a private CS collection company keeping a
percentage of every dollar they collect as a finders fee. And that is
what
I object to because they are preying on the misfortune of CP's and not
allowing the full amount collected to be applied to the amount owed by the
NCP's.

Wouldn't the best way of the NCP getting credited for the full amount of
child support paid be to pay it regularly, and within the orders of the
court? Then a collection agency wouldn't be needed.

See, if the collection agency is able to collect the money, that means it's
there, to be collected. So then, my only question is why the NCP chose to
hold out on paying the court ordered CS, waiting for some collection agency
to step in.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Moon Shyne wrote:
"Chris" wrote in message
news:3z%tg.1815$Mz3.191@fed1read07...
Just heard a radio spot soliciting the pro-"child support" crowd.
It
basically states that collection of so-called "child support" is
"your
right".

If there is a legal order for the collection and disbursement of
child
support, then it IS their right.

No it is not. The legal right attaches to the child, not to the
custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you who the funds get dirbursed to
(the
custodial parent) - they then have the fiduciary responsibility to
manage
the funds.

A fiduciary responsibility is not a legal right. It is a legal
responsibility. So by your own logic, you are wrong.

I disagree. The parent with the court order that they receive CS has the
legal right to it.

THEN, they have the fiduciary responsibility.

2 separate things.

Ever here of
breach of fiduciary duty?

Yup.

Besides, a fiduciary responsibility that is
never enforced is no responsibility at all. I doubt that any states
characterize the relationship this way.

All of which has nothing to do with the court order that gives them the
legal right to receive the child support.


If child support was the right of the custodial
parent, it would be called alimony. If you lose the child, the child
support goes with the child. Some "right."

You're attempting to compare apples and figs here.

No, you cannot understand the difference. The right is vested in the
child, not in the custodial parent.

Read the court order. It will tell you to whom the child support is paid.

Moonie is right on this issue. A money judgment is filed that summarizes
the contents of the court order. CSE does not read the court order. They
enforce the money judgment that is filed and docketed.

The money judgment shows the CP as the judgment creditor. They rarely name
the child(ren). An exception is when adult child attending school CS is
paid directly to the child. In those cases the child can be named as the
judgment creditor.

The CS judgment is for money owed by the judgment debtor to the judgment
creditor. When CS is not paid the arrearage accrues to the judgment
creditor. The judgment creditor has the right to re-up the money judgment
if the state's statutory limitation on the money judgment is about to
expire.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept,
in
order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a
maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of
them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax
intercept,
yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed
against
the
children's intented CS amount".

The difference is the CS collection companies keep upwards of 30% of
the
total they collect.

So it isn't the keeping of some money that you object to, it's simply
the
amount that you object to?

I think that is a good summary of what I am saying. Some states charge
a
modest fee to set up a CS account. Some states keep a processing fee on
garnishments. Some states charge a modest fee to do tax intercepts.
Some
states allow for a modest pass-through of CS on welfare cases while
other
states keep 100% of the CS paid.

Those instances of state's recovering a portion of their incremental
costs
are a lot different than a private CS collection company keeping a
percentage of every dollar they collect as a finders fee. And that is
what
I object to because they are preying on the misfortune of CP's and not
allowing the full amount collected to be applied to the amount owed by
the
NCP's.

Wouldn't the best way of the NCP getting credited for the full amount of
child support paid be to pay it regularly, and within the orders of the
court? Then a collection agency wouldn't be needed.

See, if the collection agency is able to collect the money, that means
it's
there, to be collected. So then, my only question is why the NCP chose to
hold out on paying the court ordered CS, waiting for some collection
agency
to step in.

Here is the problem with your theory.

Private CS collection agencies are leaches. They get their 30-40% when CS
is collected by a private attorney, a state agency, or the NCP pays
voluntarily. Their contracts are automatically self-renewing and when an
NCP starts paying regularly they still get their percentage take.

While it is okay to claim an NCP should pay according to court order, these
CS collection agencies are ultimately preying on unsuspecting CP's.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

States perform the same services without any charges being
assessed against the children's intended CS amount.

Some states, when the child support agency pursues a tax intercept,
in
order
to collect past due child support, they keep a percentage, up to a
maximum
flat rate amount - at least in some states, because mine is one of
them.
This percentage is taken out of the money collected via tax
intercept,
yet
the full amount is credited to the NCP - thereby being "assessed
against
the
children's intented CS amount".

The difference is the CS collection companies keep upwards of 30% of
the
total they collect.

So it isn't the keeping of some money that you object to, it's simply
the
amount that you object to?

I think that is a good summary of what I am saying. Some states charge
a
modest fee to set up a CS account. Some states keep a processing fee on
garnishments. Some states charge a modest fee to do tax intercepts.
Some
states allow for a modest pass-through of CS on welfare cases while
other
states keep 100% of the CS paid.

Those instances of state's recovering a portion of their incremental
costs
are a lot different than a private CS collection company keeping a
percentage of every dollar they collect as a finders fee. And that is
what
I object to because they are preying on the misfortune of CP's and not
allowing the full amount collected to be applied to the amount owed by
the
NCP's.

Wouldn't the best way of the NCP getting credited for the full amount of
child support paid be to pay it regularly, and within the orders of the
court? Then a collection agency wouldn't be needed.

See, if the collection agency is able to collect the money, that means
it's
there, to be collected. So then, my only question is why the NCP chose
to
hold out on paying the court ordered CS, waiting for some collection
agency
to step in.

Here is the problem with your theory.

Private CS collection agencies are leaches. They get their 30-40% when CS
is collected by a private attorney, a state agency, or the NCP pays
voluntarily. Their contracts are automatically self-renewing and when an
NCP starts paying regularly they still get their percentage take.

While it is okay to claim an NCP should pay according to court order,
these
CS collection agencies are ultimately preying on unsuspecting CP's.

Not really - they're providing the service they have been asked to provide,
BY the CP's. They don't jump in, unasked.