Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done
that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter
he
had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were
irrelevant. That the only child who mattered was the one CS was being set
for,

That's code for "the only one that matters is the lazy mother". When it
comes to so-called "family court" the ONLY one who counts is the woman, no
matter the cost to fathers and children.

and CS was set as if she were the only child that needed any access to
that income. And the woman doesn't work at all!!

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

1.) All of these income shares CS models are based on intact household
spending on children.
2.) None consider the cost of setting up a second household in a
divorced/separated circumstance.
3.) There are no considerations for visitation expenses or costs that have
been proven to travel with the children.
4.) The CS models have never had any relationship to never married
situations and assume the parents would have been married.
5.) The tax assumptions are faulty and generalize the tax consequences of
splitting parents.
6.) Stating a bunch of generalizations does not make them factual.

Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done
that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter
he
had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were
irrelevant. That the only child who mattered was the one CS was being set
for,

That's code for "the only one that matters is the lazy mother". When it
comes to so-called "family court" the ONLY one who counts is the woman, no
matter the cost to fathers and children.

and CS was set as if she were the only child that needed any access to
that income. And the woman doesn't work at all!!



Interestingly, the case on Dr Phil the other night is almost inverse to
my Wife's/SS's case. My wife is the CP and has only one child. My
wife is an MBA/CPA and makes a professional income. Bio Dad/NCP is a
craftsman and has four out of wedlock kids with 3 different Moms. He
as custody of and receives CS for 2 and pays CS on 2. Every time the
case returns to court his actual CS payments go up even though his
percentage share of CS for my son goes down based on the CPs increasing
income. My SS, being the oldest of his 4, gets the majoity of CS
dollars that he pays.

It could be argued that the oldest or first children should not have to
suffer because of decisions made by their NCP or CP parents. But, how
do courts justify a lack of equality in CS $'s going to multiple
children by multiple mothers in an NCP/CP situation?

It is obvious that the system is biased against NCPs even when the
number of children they are responsible for increases and when the CP
makes significantly more money than the NCP.

Effectively, all a CP has to do is return to court every two years or
at the point of a life changing event and the CS will go up.

Hmmmmmmmm?

Regards,
Rags

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

Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving
parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance
with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of
his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards
of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just
isn't
done
that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter
he
had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children
were
irrelevant. That the only child who mattered was the one CS was being
set
for,

That's code for "the only one that matters is the lazy mother". When it
comes to so-called "family court" the ONLY one who counts is the woman,
no
matter the cost to fathers and children.

and CS was set as if she were the only child that needed any access to
that income. And the woman doesn't work at all!!



Interestingly, the case on Dr Phil the other night is almost inverse to
my Wife's/SS's case. My wife is the CP and has only one child. My
wife is an MBA/CPA and makes a professional income. Bio Dad/NCP is a
craftsman and has four out of wedlock kids with 3 different Moms. He
as custody of and receives CS for 2 and pays CS on 2. Every time the
case returns to court his actual CS payments go up even though his
percentage share of CS for my son goes down based on the CPs increasing
income. My SS, being the oldest of his 4, gets the majoity of CS
dollars that he pays.

It could be argued that the oldest or first children should not have to
suffer because of decisions made by their NCP or CP parents. But, how
do courts justify a lack of equality in CS $'s going to multiple
children by multiple mothers in an NCP/CP situation?

It is obvious that the system is biased against NCPs even when the
number of children they are responsible for increases and when the CP
makes significantly more money than the NCP.

Effectively, all a CP has to do is return to court every two years or
at the point of a life changing event and the CS will go up.

Hmmmmmmmm?

Good observation. What you have discovered is the fact the CS guideline
tables and calculation methodology are structured in a way so the NCP
father's income drives the outcome. It doesn't matter how much you wife
makes. The resultant CS award will be driven by the NCP's income.

You can test this out by using various income levels for the CP in the CS
calculators. When I did it I found CS paid changed $12-15 per month for
every $5,000 in gross income change up or down for the CP. When you add in
the fact that over time the CS total increases due to increased earnings and
increased assumptions about child rearing expenditures, the NCP will only
see CS payment increases. Another factor that forces high CS awards over
time is the use of imputed incomes for the NCP.

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving
parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance
with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of
his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards
of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just
isn't
done
that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter
he
had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children
were
irrelevant. That the only child who mattered was the one CS was being
set
for,

That's code for "the only one that matters is the lazy mother". When it
comes to so-called "family court" the ONLY one who counts is the woman,
no
matter the cost to fathers and children.

and CS was set as if she were the only child that needed any access to
that income. And the woman doesn't work at all!!



Interestingly, the case on Dr Phil the other night is almost inverse to
my Wife's/SS's case. My wife is the CP and has only one child. My
wife is an MBA/CPA and makes a professional income. Bio Dad/NCP is a
craftsman and has four out of wedlock kids with 3 different Moms. He
as custody of and receives CS for 2 and pays CS on 2. Every time the
case returns to court his actual CS payments go up even though his
percentage share of CS for my son goes down based on the CPs increasing
income. My SS, being the oldest of his 4, gets the majoity of CS
dollars that he pays.

It could be argued that the oldest or first children should not have to
suffer because of decisions made by their NCP or CP parents. But, how
do courts justify a lack of equality in CS $'s going to multiple
children by multiple mothers in an NCP/CP situation?

It is obvious that the system is biased against NCPs even when the
number of children they are responsible for increases and when the CP
makes significantly more money than the NCP.

Effectively, all a CP has to do is return to court every two years or
at the point of a life changing event and the CS will go up.

Hmmmmmmmm?

Good observation. What you have discovered is the fact the CS guideline
tables and calculation methodology are structured in a way so the NCP
father's income drives the outcome. It doesn't matter how much you wife
makes. The resultant CS award will be driven by the NCP's income.

You can test this out by using various income levels for the CP in the CS
calculators. When I did it I found CS paid changed $12-15 per month for
every $5,000 in gross income change up or down for the CP. When you add in
the fact that over time the CS total increases due to increased earnings and
increased assumptions about child rearing expenditures, the NCP will only
see CS payment increases. Another factor that forces high CS awards over
time is the use of imputed incomes for the NCP.

Bob,

I have not done an analysis with the CS calculators focused on changes
in CP income. But I have done an analysis to determine the impact on
CS when the CP makes significantly more $ than the NCP. My findings
agree with yours. Disparity beween CP and NCP income has little impact
on the CS level.

The NCP is screwed as soon as the courts get involved.

One of my employees recently got hit with CS for a child he did not
know he had. The Mom went on govt assistance. As soon as welfare
gets involved they mandate establishment of paternity and nail the
father with the max CS possible at his income. He received a supoena
for a DNA test. As soon as paternity was proved they nailed him for
back CS to the date of the DNA test. He pays $100.00/wk which will
drop to $89.00/wk when the arrearage is paid off.

Since CP is on welfare, NCP is automatically held responsible for 100%
of the childs support needs.

If welfare is income to the CP, shouldn't that income be considered
when calculating CS?

There is no logic in the family court system.

Regards,
Rags

This is an old post, but with so much juicy stuff:

pandora wrote:
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

try to shame them, and claim men have been marginalized to get them to
shut
up so the femwits don't have to hear what men have to say.

We hear you, we just point and laugh when you say stupid things.

This is how feminists act when they _believe_ they have power: As
arrogant and dimissive as they claimed the evil patriarchs treated
women. Of course, the second the "good" patriarchs stop chivalrously
protecting them, that's the end of such arrogance.

Obviously, you're either too stupid to get it OR just don't wish to admit
that the status of women has changed. Don't worry about it, women will
continue to do that which they wish to and those like yourself will be left
behind.

Which ties into:

Affirmative action was only a stop gap measure to deal with such as
yourself; those with prejudices, and to force them to comply with
the
laws.
Most comply these days and so, affirmative action isn't needed to
the
same
extent.

So you admit that women will always need training wheels to deal with
their shortcomings or boogymen under the bed. Apparently, the sexist
men are able to stick around without special programs.

Think about it: while career women are always just one program short of
stability the sexist men will _always_ be with us ready to put them
back into the kitchen at a moment's notice.

It wasn't special rights at all but rather opportunities that had been
denied them heretofore and to achieve equality. It was the agenda of such
as you that made AA necessary in the first place. Stuff it boyo.

Gee, plenty of such sexist men came to the states and were denied
opportunities including Catholics and Chinese men and they ultimately
became successful. Oh, wait, they didn't need handholding lest they
run back to the kitchen. Nevermind.

That pity party may have worked in the past but it's quickly becoming
tired and old as these women find it more difficult to blame boogymen
for their failures. What then? Maybe blame space aliens next for
women's inability to compete with men without special programs. :-)

Are you telling me that you actually believe that men/fathers do half the
child rearing in our society? Guys have a long way to go before they can
state that with any honesty and until they are actually DOING half, they
won't be getting half custody.

Gee, that might also explain why men were more successfull and earned
more than women: They did the actual work. They don't hand out nobel
prizes for squeezing out babies and staying home with them all day.

Now, suddenly, Marg has discovered MERIT: When she sees that women are
doing some work. Suddenly, she doesn't buy into victim handouts when
most of the pity recipients would be men.

So here are some clues to the source of your deep anger towards men.

I have no anger toward men at all.

Sure you do. If you didn't have anger, then you'd have to acknowledge
that men are actually your protecters and benefactors rather than
oppressors. Biting the hand that has fed you has let you feel more
important, so far. Fortunately, you'll live to see that change.

You
felt used for helping your husband get ahead.

Nope. It was MY choice to do so as we couldn't be together any other way.
MY salary was necessary in order for us to live/eat/etc, and I cared about
him getting his degree. It was for both of us that he did so and I was
quite willing to pull my weight.

Yikes, I hate to agree with Marg here but she did live out the
_traditional_ life and worked for a small while long enough to cash in
on her husband's career and that's how it's been ever since.

In fact, most feminists are products either of traditionalism and take
it for granted OR women such as Parg who are angry that they actually
had to work for a living and pay the bills.

Maybe if you had been stuck working and paying the bills without an
evil man around to support you then maybe you might have been a little
more grateful when one came along.

You felt subservient for
being a SAH mom.

Nope. Again, it was a matter of choice (you do know what CHOICE is, don't
you, well maybe not), to do such as my salary was the lower one and in those
days, daycares wouldn't take infants. At least not around here where we
live.

Indeed: Such as the choice for women for millennia to raise children
and have men EARN workplace credit and pay the bills. This choice
explains women's "lack of opportunities" moreso than evil sexists
hiding under the bed.

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child
would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How does
this work?

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my child
would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How
does this work?

I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to how
much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child
would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country. How
does this work?

I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to
how
much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.

It was only a matter of time before their sick laws would start impacting a
much larger part (mainly women and children) of society than just fathers;
and your case is a perfect example.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"?-?" wrote in message
. com...

"teachrmama" wrote in

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't
done that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the
daughter he had just found out about, the judge told him that his other
children were irrelevant.

Funny, I was just told by immigration that lack of CS payments to my
child would not cause any hardship for her and I am to leave the country.
How does this work?

I don't know about your case. In my husband's case, he was told that the
almost-13-year-old he had just found out about was the only one the courts
would look at in setting CS--and that our 2 daughters were irrelevant to
how much $$$ he would be assigned to pay.

When are you going to accept that not only are subsequent children
irrelevant in CS cases for prior children, but subsequemnt wives/husbands
are, too?

Unless you think that when the CP has more children, the CS should go up?