A Fair Guideline

A Fair Guideline


Housing: Housing costs should not be taken into account during CS
guidelines.

1.Housing costs are shared by both parents when ANY overnight
visitation occurs with the NCP. The NCP must provide, theoretically, a
bedroom for the child to sleep in. The CP must provide the same,
theoretically. The amount of time this room is used is irrelevant.
2.Homeowners who pay a mortgage are making an investment. Any increase
in home price due to extra bedrooms is irrelevant. It is an investment.
Housing is only truly an expense if one rents a living space.
3.Exception: Housing costs should only be allowed if one parent
forfeits their right to see the child, or if one person cannot see the
child because that parent moved away from the children. The formula
stands if visitation is not possible because the children were moved
away from the parent paying.

Transportation: A fair way to assess transportation costs follows.

1.Transportation costs should be calculated based on the amount of
miles that a CP puts on a private automobile, or spends in public
transportation solely for the children subject to the action. This
number can be correctly assessed only by doing a study of the habits of
CP's in transporting children. This number should be subtracted from
by the amount of miles NCP's puts on a vehicle to transport children
while they are in their care, or alternatively, how much they spend on
public transit exclusively for the children. The cost to the vehicle in
depreciation should be calculated using the amount of depreciation per
miles for the average automobile. The high depreciation of luxury
automobiles should not be included, they are, by definition, a luxury
expense that was unnecessary to begin with. The difference in these two
numbers is the cost of transportation.

Food: A fair assessment.

1.Food costs should be calculated by a study on how much children
actually eat, in dollar amounts. School lunch costs should be included.
Time with NCP should be included in the cost estimates also. Although I
recognize the ability to "eat out" is often necessary, luxury meals
at high-priced restaurants should not be included in either the CP or
NCP's estimates. These are a luxury expense and should be treated as
such. . Food expenses should decrease and increase according to a
formula based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment is
due. This award should be a living one.


Clothing: A fair assessment.

1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based on
different custody arrangements. There is no luxury category here, as
many children wish to have "luxurious" clothing, and many luxury
items are of higher quality. Clothing expenses should decrease and
increase according to a formula based on the age of the children at the
time the CS payment is due. This award should be a living one.


Healthca A fair assessment.

1.Healthcare can be an expensive proposition. If one parent is required
to carry health insurance on the children, the costs of such should be
deducted or added to the CS amount based on a 50/50 split of the costs.
In the absence of healthcare by either parent, data on the amount of
money spent of healthcare of "healthy" (ie no major disease or
infirmary) should be taken into account and the costs split equally.
Healthcare expenses should decrease and increase according to a formula
based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment is due.
This award should be a living one.

Miscellaneous Expenses

1.Miscellaneous expenses are often the most difficult expenses to
assess. Once again, a study should be done of the amount of
miscellaneous expenses are undertaken by CP's and NCP's in
different custody arrangements. An incomplete list of these expenses
include: jewelry, entertainment (items for use only by children), toys,
etc. Tuiton for private school should not be included unless both
parents agree to said schooling. If both agree, payments of one half
are to be made directly to the school by the parents. Educational
expenses for public school should be included, with the exception of
meals, which are calculated under food costs.

Physical joint custody should not be grounds for CS, as each parent is
sharing equally in the costs already, according to his or her means.

Feel free to amend and correct as you feel necessary, J.

I like that you are trying to lay this out and prompt discussion. I
have time for a few comments tonight and will make them in line.

On 2 May 2005 19:39:25 -0700, "J" wrote:

A Fair Guideline


Housing: Housing costs should not be taken into account during CS
guidelines.

1.Housing costs are shared by both parents when ANY overnight
visitation occurs with the NCP. The NCP must provide, theoretically, a
bedroom for the child to sleep in. The CP must provide the same,
theoretically. The amount of time this room is used is irrelevant.

2.Homeowners who pay a mortgage are making an investment. Any increase
in home price due to extra bedrooms is irrelevant. It is an investment.
Housing is only truly an expense if one rents a living space.
3.Exception: Housing costs should only be allowed if one parent
forfeits their right to see the child, or if one person cannot see the
child because that parent moved away from the children. The formula
stands if visitation is not possible because the children were moved
away from the parent paying.

I agree; however, I would like to mention that there is little
disincentive for the custodial parent to move away since the "pay your
own" formula remains the same. I do think that there should be a
financial disintentive for the custodial parent to move too far...
perhaps that can be addressed in transportation.

I don't want to hear how a woman who "married well" divorced and
cannot possibly stay within a reasonable distance given her ability to
earn. That is a spousal support issue in my opinion.


Transportation: A fair way to assess transportation costs follows.

1.Transportation costs should be calculated based on the amount of
miles that a CP puts on a private automobile, or spends in public
transportation solely for the children subject to the action. This
number can be correctly assessed only by doing a study of the habits of
CP's in transporting children. This number should be subtracted from
by the amount of miles NCP's puts on a vehicle to transport children
while they are in their care, or alternatively, how much they spend on
public transit exclusively for the children. The cost to the vehicle in
depreciation should be calculated using the amount of depreciation per
miles for the average automobile. The high depreciation of luxury
automobiles should not be included, they are, by definition, a luxury
expense that was unnecessary to begin with. The difference in these two
numbers is the cost of transportation.

Perhaps standard IRS rates can be used? I would not use a
depreciation schedule at all because some cars retain their value much
better than others. However, and I cannot speak for everyone, but I
plan my trips to accomplish more than one thing. For example, I drop
my son at his friend's house on the way to the grocery store.
"Excess" mileage can be negligible and how would we determine if the
trip was "child only?" I still think it is better to use a base rate
on what is average for the area and multiplying it by the percentage
that the child is with the particular parent and giving the paying
parent credit for that cost which they have incurred using the same
formula.

That said, we must address the issue of transportation expense for
move-away parents. It is my belief that whomever moved away should
bear these expenses in their entirety UNLESS the move-away parent had
a compelling reason to do so (i.e. military restationed them, etc...).


Food: A fair assessment.

1.Food costs should be calculated by a study on how much children
actually eat, in dollar amounts. School lunch costs should be included.
Time with NCP should be included in the cost estimates also. Although I
recognize the ability to "eat out" is often necessary, luxury meals
at high-priced restaurants should not be included in either the CP or
NCP's estimates. These are a luxury expense and should be treated as
such. . Food expenses should decrease and increase according to a
formula based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment is
due. This award should be a living one.


Clothing: A fair assessment.

1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based on
different custody arrangements. There is no luxury category here, as
many children wish to have "luxurious" clothing, and many luxury
items are of higher quality. Clothing expenses should decrease and
increase according to a formula based on the age of the children at the
time the CS payment is due. This award should be a living one.

I disagree with there being no luxury category here. Children have a
right to be clothed appropriately, but bear no right on having the
kind of clothes they desire. Many in-tact families I know require the
children to pay for "an upgrade" themselves because it is a lesson in
thrift. Funny, but my children don't seem to "need" $60 jeans as much
when they have to provide the difference (vs. $15.99 Walmart Jeans)
themselves. Also, quality is not as much of an issue when the
children only fit in the (seasonal) clothing for one season. By the
time quality (i.e. longevity) matters is at the time when clothing
need not be bought as often (hence, it must last).


Healthca A fair assessment.

1.Healthcare can be an expensive proposition. If one parent is required
to carry health insurance on the children, the costs of such should be
deducted or added to the CS amount based on a 50/50 split of the costs.
In the absence of healthcare by either parent, data on the amount of
money spent of healthcare of "healthy" (ie no major disease or
infirmary) should be taken into account and the costs split equally.
Healthcare expenses should decrease and increase according to a formula
based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment is due.
This award should be a living one.

Miscellaneous Expenses

1.Miscellaneous expenses are often the most difficult expenses to
assess. Once again, a study should be done of the amount of
miscellaneous expenses are undertaken by CP's and NCP's in
different custody arrangements. An incomplete list of these expenses
include: jewelry, entertainment (items for use only by children), toys,
etc. Tuiton for private school should not be included unless both
parents agree to said schooling. If both agree, payments of one half
are to be made directly to the school by the parents. Educational
expenses for public school should be included, with the exception of
meals, which are calculated under food costs.

Physical joint custody should not be grounds for CS, as each parent is
sharing equally in the costs already, according to his or her means.

Feel free to amend and correct as you feel necessary, J.

Blah, blah, blah. There I have done my share. More posts in 5 minutes
than you people could muster in a week, and probably just as helpful. I
will check this dead group tomorrow for the final time. Discussing the
masturbating habits of birds is more interesting than listening to a
bunch of whiny babies. Anxious for my English lesson, plus I have not
been called a liar for a week now. Gosh I missed it.

"William Barger" wrote in

I will check this dead group tomorrow for the final time. Discussing the
masturbating habits of birds is more interesting than listening to a
bunch of whiny babies.

He makes 3 grand announcemets that he's leaving, then commits the ultimate
USENET sin of checking back to see if he got any responce. For somebody that
whines that this group is boring, he sure spends enough time here!
LOLOLOLOLOLOL

What an Idiot!

Beverly wrote:
I like that you are trying to lay this out and prompt discussion. I
have time for a few comments tonight and will make them in line.

On 2 May 2005 19:39:25 -0700, "J" wrote:

A Fair Guideline


Housing: Housing costs should not be taken into account during CS
guidelines.

1.Housing costs are shared by both parents when ANY overnight
visitation occurs with the NCP. The NCP must provide, theoretically,
a
bedroom for the child to sleep in. The CP must provide the same,
theoretically. The amount of time this room is used is irrelevant.

2.Homeowners who pay a mortgage are making an investment. Any
increase
in home price due to extra bedrooms is irrelevant. It is an
investment.
Housing is only truly an expense if one rents a living space.
3.Exception: Housing costs should only be allowed if one parent
forfeits their right to see the child, or if one person cannot see
the
child because that parent moved away from the children. The formula
stands if visitation is not possible because the children were moved
away from the parent paying.

I agree; however, I would like to mention that there is little
disincentive for the custodial parent to move away since the "pay
your
own" formula remains the same. I do think that there should be a
financial disintentive for the custodial parent to move too far...
perhaps that can be addressed in transportation.

I agree with you here, however, I believe move-aways are best addressed
by reform in family court laws and practices.


I don't want to hear how a woman who "married well" divorced and
cannot possibly stay within a reasonable distance given her ability
to
earn. That is a spousal support issue in my opinion.


Transportation: A fair way to assess transportation costs follows.

1.Transportation costs should be calculated based on the amount of
miles that a CP puts on a private automobile, or spends in public
transportation solely for the children subject to the action. This
number can be correctly assessed only by doing a study of the habits
of
CP's in transporting children. This number should be subtracted from
by the amount of miles NCP's puts on a vehicle to transport children
while they are in their care, or alternatively, how much they spend
on
public transit exclusively for the children. The cost to the vehicle
in
depreciation should be calculated using the amount of depreciation
per
miles for the average automobile. The high depreciation of luxury
automobiles should not be included, they are, by definition, a
luxury
expense that was unnecessary to begin with. The difference in these
two
numbers is the cost of transportation.

Perhaps standard IRS rates can be used? I would not use a
depreciation schedule at all because some cars retain their value
much
better than others. However, and I cannot speak for everyone, but I
plan my trips to accomplish more than one thing. For example, I drop
my son at his friend's house on the way to the grocery store.
"Excess" mileage can be negligible and how would we determine if the
trip was "child only?" I still think it is better to use a base rate
on what is average for the area and multiplying it by the percentage
that the child is with the particular parent and giving the paying
parent credit for that cost which they have incurred using the same
formula.

I am not really concerned about how it is assessed, you have a good
idea here, I believe. Average depreciation could be taken on the
average car. The cars that depreciate the most would not be included
because these are largely luxury cars. Take for example a Jag sedan,
luxury car with HUGE depreciation.

That said, we must address the issue of transportation expense for
move-away parents. It is my belief that whomever moved away should
bear these expenses in their entirety UNLESS the move-away parent had
a compelling reason to do so (i.e. military restationed them,
etc...).

Military parents have access to greatly discounted flights, they should
bear the cost of the restationing, it was, after all, their choice to
join the military.

Food: A fair assessment.

1.Food costs should be calculated by a study on how much children
actually eat, in dollar amounts. School lunch costs should be
included.
Time with NCP should be included in the cost estimates also.
Although I
recognize the ability to "eat out" is often necessary, luxury meals
at high-priced restaurants should not be included in either the CP
or
NCP's estimates. These are a luxury expense and should be treated as
such. . Food expenses should decrease and increase according to a
formula based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment
is
due. This award should be a living one.


Clothing: A fair assessment.

1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much
CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based on
different custody arrangements. There is no luxury category here, as
many children wish to have "luxurious" clothing, and many luxury
items are of higher quality. Clothing expenses should decrease and
increase according to a formula based on the age of the children at
the
time the CS payment is due. This award should be a living one.

I disagree with there being no luxury category here. Children have a
right to be clothed appropriately, but bear no right on having the
kind of clothes they desire. Many in-tact families I know require
the
children to pay for "an upgrade" themselves because it is a lesson in
thrift. Funny, but my children don't seem to "need" $60 jeans as
much
when they have to provide the difference (vs. $15.99 Walmart Jeans)
themselves. Also, quality is not as much of an issue when the
children only fit in the (seasonal) clothing for one season. By the
time quality (i.e. longevity) matters is at the time when clothing
need not be bought as often (hence, it must last).

I agree that some items should not consider luxury, such as jeans, for
instance. Good point about children growing out of clothes, I did not
think of that as related to quality.


Healthca A fair assessment.

1.Healthcare can be an expensive proposition. If one parent is
required
to carry health insurance on the children, the costs of such should
be
deducted or added to the CS amount based on a 50/50 split of the
costs.
In the absence of healthcare by either parent, data on the amount of
money spent of healthcare of "healthy" (ie no major disease or
infirmary) should be taken into account and the costs split equally.
Healthcare expenses should decrease and increase according to a
formula
based on the age of the children at the time the CS payment is due.
This award should be a living one.

Miscellaneous Expenses

1.Miscellaneous expenses are often the most difficult expenses to
assess. Once again, a study should be done of the amount of
miscellaneous expenses are undertaken by CP's and NCP's in
different custody arrangements. An incomplete list of these expenses
include: jewelry, entertainment (items for use only by children),
toys,
etc. Tuiton for private school should not be included unless both
parents agree to said schooling. If both agree, payments of one half
are to be made directly to the school by the parents. Educational
expenses for public school should be included, with the exception of
meals, which are calculated under food costs.

Physical joint custody should not be grounds for CS, as each parent
is
sharing equally in the costs already, according to his or her means.

Feel free to amend and correct as you feel necessary, J.

"J" wrote in


1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much
CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based on
different custody arrangements.

Do we really think that we can predict life using formulas?

I grew up in a two parent home and received very little in the way of new
things or dining out.
Ever hear of hand me downs????????/

It's doesn't or shouldn't take much to keep kids happy and by the time they
are 11, they want to be independent and run around with their own pals.
Scouts is a wonderful organization, a parent would do well to get their kids
involved in something like that or a school band.

I get on edge when I think the same government that totally screws up every
day and squanders money like there is no tomorrow, can think they have the
ability to accurately predict my way of living.

"G" wrote in message
ink.net...

"J" wrote in


1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much
CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based on
different custody arrangements.

Do we really think that we can predict life using formulas?

I grew up in a two parent home and received very little in the way of new
things or dining out.
Ever hear of hand me downs????????/

It's doesn't or shouldn't take much to keep kids happy and by the time
they are 11, they want to be independent and run around with their own
pals. Scouts is a wonderful organization, a parent would do well to get
their kids involved in something like that or a school band.

I get on edge when I think the same government that totally screws up
every day and squanders money like there is no tomorrow, can think they
have the ability to accurately predict my way of living.

No kidding! Every time I hear about some formula being set up to include
"extras," such as piano lessons, or being on a ball team, etc, I cringe.
Those costs can be run up unbelievably high with very little effort. My
siblings and I didn't have those things while we were growing up, because my
paernts felt it more important to put money away for the years to come. And
that is what my mom lives on now. To order a parent to spend a certain
amount on luxury items just because the other parent wants to do so is
ridiculous. I say pay for the basics, and let the parent who feels the
child should have more than that pay for it! Or else the parents can sit
down together and work out the "extras" with not court order involved--just
2 parents working in the best interests of their child.

"J" wrote in


1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much
CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based
on
different custody arrangements.

Do we really think that we can predict life using formulas?

I grew up in a two parent home and received very little in the way
of new
things or dining out.
Ever hear of hand me downs????????/

It's doesn't or shouldn't take much to keep kids happy and by the
time
they are 11, they want to be independent and run around with their
own
pals. Scouts is a wonderful organization, a parent would do well to
get
their kids involved in something like that or a school band.

I get on edge when I think the same government that totally screws
up
every day and squanders money like there is no tomorrow, can think
they
have the ability to accurately predict my way of living.

No kidding! Every time I hear about some formula being set up to
include
"extras," such as piano lessons, or being on a ball team, etc, I
cringe.
Those costs can be run up unbelievably high with very little effort.
My
siblings and I didn't have those things while we were growing up,
because my
paernts felt it more important to put money away for the years to
come. And
that is what my mom lives on now. To order a parent to spend a
certain
amount on luxury items just because the other parent wants to do so
is
ridiculous. I say pay for the basics, and let the parent who feels
the
child should have more than that pay for it! Or else the parents can
sit
down together and work out the "extras" with not court order
involved--just
2 parents working in the best interests of their child.


While I agree that formulas cannot be used to predict life expenses,
the current formula are so bad that I believe we should at least try to
be more accurate with our calculations, it is impossible, but the fact
the CS awards are mandatory demands that the govt do the impossible.
The govt is not even capable of doing the possible, but a bad
guidelines is better than a horrible one.

I agree with your sentiment about extras, miscellaneous expenses should
be estimated based on the expenses that are actually needed. Of course
CP's will complain that the NCP is cheap, etc, etc. But we will never
stop the complaining from both sides, so why not attempts to equalize
things as much as possible?

"J" wrote in

I agree with your sentiment about extras, miscellaneous expenses should
be estimated based on the expenses that are actually needed. Of course
CP's will complain that the NCP is cheap, etc, etc.

CP's can complain all they want, but at least the child will a have a full
belly and roof over their head.
Who wants to deal with calculations, just look at the tax code? Sheesh

"J" wrote in message
ups.com...

"J" wrote in


1.Clothing cost should be estimated by doing a study on how much
CP's
and NCP's actually spend on clothing for their children, based
on
different custody arrangements.

Do we really think that we can predict life using formulas?

I grew up in a two parent home and received very little in the way
of new
things or dining out.
Ever hear of hand me downs????????/

It's doesn't or shouldn't take much to keep kids happy and by the
time
they are 11, they want to be independent and run around with their
own
pals. Scouts is a wonderful organization, a parent would do well to
get
their kids involved in something like that or a school band.

I get on edge when I think the same government that totally screws
up
every day and squanders money like there is no tomorrow, can think
they
have the ability to accurately predict my way of living.

No kidding! Every time I hear about some formula being set up to
include
"extras," such as piano lessons, or being on a ball team, etc, I
cringe.
Those costs can be run up unbelievably high with very little effort.
My
siblings and I didn't have those things while we were growing up,
because my
paernts felt it more important to put money away for the years to
come. And
that is what my mom lives on now. To order a parent to spend a
certain
amount on luxury items just because the other parent wants to do so
is
ridiculous. I say pay for the basics, and let the parent who feels
the
child should have more than that pay for it! Or else the parents can
sit
down together and work out the "extras" with not court order
involved--just
2 parents working in the best interests of their child.


While I agree that formulas cannot be used to predict life expenses,
the current formula are so bad that I believe we should at least try to
be more accurate with our calculations, it is impossible, but the fact
the CS awards are mandatory demands that the govt do the impossible.
The govt is not even capable of doing the possible, but a bad
guidelines is better than a horrible one.

I agree with your sentiment about extras, miscellaneous expenses should
be estimated based on the expenses that are actually needed. Of course
CP's will complain that the NCP is cheap, etc, etc. But we will never
stop the complaining from both sides, so why not attempts to equalize
things as much as possible?

Married parents are not required to provide their children with any sort of
luxury items. Divorced parents should not be required to, either. Of
course, most parents want to provide for their children over and above the
basics. Perhaps if NCPs were given the opportunity to choose to provide the
luxuries, rather than being forced to, we would see children with more,
rather than less. The government can never replace the parent, and it is
ridiculous for them to try. Cover the basics with child support--I'm sure
that will not be going away any time soon. Then let the parents do their
jobs as parents. That will certainly work better than one parent being
favored over the other by the system.