WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do without
the system.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
the system.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree.
==
Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
agreement
between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right to
"bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
same.
In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.
==
==
I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
the system.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree.
==
Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
agreement
between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right to
"bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
same.
In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.
==
==
I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
the system.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,

I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think that
the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was set
up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
have the mess we have today.

And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull in
the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that little
jewel in our Constitution!

our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?



Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no interest
in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
the system.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,

I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think that
the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was set
up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
have the mess we have today.

And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull in
the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that little
jewel in our Constitution!

our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?



Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no interest
in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

"BB" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
In article , "teachrmama"
wrote:

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

"BB" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
In article , "teachrmama"
wrote:

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
news

"BB" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
In article , "teachrmama"
wrote:

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.

Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you propose
when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child support?
Then what?


50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
news

"BB" wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
In article , "teachrmama"
wrote:

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.

Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you propose
when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child support?
Then what?


50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

"gini52" wrote in message
...
So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
both
agree.
==
Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
agreement
between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
to
"bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
same.
In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.

I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out. The problem is it
takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.

Papa