If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child. That's the best idea I've read here to date! Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went? Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home, a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down because Johnnie became cheaper to support? Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent. What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will *want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond. The other choice is to require some proof that Johnnie DIRECTLY benifits from those expendtures. So if he rides 50miles a week in a car that is driven for 150miles then one third of the month cost of that car is attributed to him. If he only drives 10miles in step-dads truck that is driven 200miles then only 5% of that cost can be given to him. Mom getting health insurance though work benifits Johnnie but what if she gets the lower co-pay version because step-dad is on viagra, should the NCP have access to that information because his child support might potentially be used to pay for mortgage costs that the health insurance offset. Again, Dad does not owe mom anything for any sort of insurance for herself. He has absolutely NO responsibility to meet any of her expenses--no matter how wonderful you think those benefits are. As for mileage in the car, you can't assume that the 50 miles Johnnie was actually in the car should be charged only to him--does Johnnie pay for the whole family to travel places? And BOTH parents have cars--will mom have to pay for the percentage of miles that Johnny is in dad's car during the month, too. I think you are just looking for ways to justify sticking it to dads because you don't think the vast majority of them measure up to your standards. What if the NCP challenges the costs in court, should he be allowed to demand an idemized recieit for every time a pizza was ordered to see what percentage of the cost was reflected by the pizza his son eats. Should he be able to question why mom got the 5 day course of brand name antibotics for his son rather than the 10 day generics. Should he be allowed to question why she spent $100 at the gap for his birthbay presents rather than $50 at wal-mart. Does a cell phone have a set value to Johnnie as a means of communication, and what if is part of a family plan so the costs while less per phone are bundled with the rest of the household, does that then give NCP the right to demand why the household has to have 500mins/month and not 400. Food, clothing, shelter aer covered in the basics. If mon chooses to buy $100 jeans rather that $30 jeans, she pays the overage herself. SHE should not have the power to say that dad has to pay whatever amount she thinks is right. And cell phones are luxuries. Why should dad be stuck paying for luxuries? If mom wants Johnnie to have them, let her pay. Wht on earth do you think that Johnnie's desires run the world? Thats the reason that the court has stuck to a lifestyle arrangment because accounting for all of the benifits Johnnie recieves, as a result of them being provided to the household, is next to impossible and would require a massive invasion of privacy. It would put the judge into the situation of refreeing a bean-counting session, at huge cost to the system. The average judge is not going to order that all the money be spent on Johnnie and accounted for precisely, because that would be huge interference with the CP's right to actually be a CP. NCPs owe NOTHING to CP's household. The household is the responsibility of the adults in that house. You have made it abundantly clear in this post that you feel that fathers should be forced to support not only their children, but also their children's mothers, and the household that the children live in. So what responsibility does that leave to mom? Not much, huh? Accounting should be kept to a minimum, one affidavit with a request for change seems reasonable. Any other requirments should be as a result of a mutally negotiated agreement between the parents. But moms can go back and demand more money any time they want to, can't they? My point was that accounting for the benfits that Johnnie recieves as a result of them being provided to the household is impossible. Are you honestly saying that Johnnie doesnt get any tangable benifit from living in a better school system, or the fact that the household has a computer and internet service, etc. I can easily see your argument that the NCP should have a say in if the benifit justifies that cost. Thats the reason that I advocate a mutally agreed upon binding agreement. Are you honestly saying that since the CP and others in the household benifit from that money spent that Johnnie recieves nothing from it? That only costs that are 100% Johnnie's can be included in the calcuation. That is so far beyond illogical that it suggests either hate or pure greed as being the motivation. The idea that a NCP should be able to determine on a miniute by minute basis what amount of money they are going to supply is morally repugnant. That removes any possibility of the CP using that money for any of Johnnies needs that arent delayable and very modular. If she would dare to use that money to better the lifestyle of the household then she puts the NCP in a position of complete control since removal of that money could potentially bankrupt them. That guts their ability to be a custodian of the the child. It also sets up a situation where getting the household to blend is next to impossible, if NCP's money can only go to expenses that are 100% Johnnies then the CP must either buy step-brother the cool stuff and hope that NCP is willing to pony up or lavish Johnnie with the money from NCP while step-brother does without. Thats morally disgusting and an excellent way to make Johnnie into a brat. If I were a CP forced into that situation I would dump all the money into a investment fund and forget about it, and refuse to permit the NCP to purchase anything for Johnnie where I could not supply an equivalent to step-brother. Frankly its bean counting with the intent to put the NCP in completel control. It also shows complete disreguard for Johnnie's long term well being and any of the intangable benifits from living in a healthy household. Basically this is making the idea of a legally mandated minimium basic support amount, followed up by the mandatory drafting of a binding agreement. Where reporting requirements, support amounts, emergency continegencies, justifications for asking for increases, effects of remarriage, visitiation, etc. are hashed out in that agreement sound better and better. Lets not substitute one set of poor assumption for the opposite set of equally poor assumptions. Human judgement is a far better problem solver than the law will ever be. Ghostwriter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |