Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:


I'm afraid I have to agree with this recommendation. Do you know how basic
"basic" is? Leaving it at that would have the CP underwriting a much larger
proportion of the childrearing cost.


But anything more than basic expenditures is discretionary, not
necessary. No parent should be required by law to support their child
more than that.

Would you be OK with the recommendation if there were oversight of the CP
expenditures?



Which means, the CP pays for all school trips, all extra curriculars, all
lessons, all dress clothes, all instruments, all birthday gifts for friends, all
playthings, all furnishings other than a bed, all toiletries, all desserts, all
trips and visits to relatives, all birthday parties, driving lessons, the prom,
college application fees, school project supplies, perhaps even optical and
dental.

You up for that?

Banty

"Sarah Gray" wrote in

no CP is required by anyone to supply more than the most basic needs for
their child. anything over and above that is *extra*. The only thing the
government should be able to mandate is that parents who do not live with
their children contribute equally to *basic* costs, not music lessons or
private school or videogame systems.

You would find that a parent that is not raped clean by the system would
have money left over to help out with the extras.

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:



How, exactly, would you mandate that the CP provide what you call "lifestyle"?
What would make you feel better about this? Because you're not arguing that all
kids in CP custody should automatically go to just-above-poverty; rather you're
bothered by if the CP is 'mandated' somehow.

The housing would be above barely-shelter stage. For kid(s) as well as CP. I
don't think kids are in the doghouse in back, or under the stairs like Harry
Potter. I don't think CP would be making two meals - good beef stew for her
and gruel for the kiddos. I don't think the kids are being carted to Tae Kwon
Do classes and back in a 1966 VW towed behind the CP's 2003 Pathfinder! A lot
of aspects of above-bare basics would be there automatically - the CP would
have to make some large effort *not* to have it so.

For that matter, how basic is basic? FEMA trailer, rice and beans, baths twice
a week, a pair of shoes per year?

(All this leaving alone why a parent would want to leave his or her own kids in
a household not his or her own expecting their living standard to go to bare
basic, and how that would possibly be considered 'fair'.)

Banty


Any decent parent will provide for their child to the best of their
capabilities. The government has no right to legislate payment of
support beyond basic needs; that is the difference.


And yet your NCP begrudges even that. You do *all* the work; you don't even ask
for half the expenses; only half the miniimum, and he begrudges even that.

Banty

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of misappropriation of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they
spent it correctly.


Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us' than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

If you were paying a large sum of money to someone every month for a set
of specific expenses, would you not want to know it was spent appropriately?



I have no problem with that.

I'm noting his "do to.." wording.

Banty

"Banty" wrote in

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments.

Banty

Much the same as when the government grants tax cuts, there's more money to
go around and spend, everybody wins!

There has to be a cap on basic needs!

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

In FY2006 there were 60,417 FTE staff working in the states and OCSE
jurisdictions. Total expenditures for enforcement were $5.6 billion with
a collection cost effectiveness ratio of $4.52.

What dothe politicians care, they're pretty generous with other people's
money!

5.6 Billion, just throw it on the $9 trillion dollar debt account!

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...

Then we basically agree. How would you implement it, though?

Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS is to be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same thing to CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they won't spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by showing they
spent it correctly.


Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?

Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was done to 'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...

Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private lives has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is social
engineering run amok.

So you're *not* for CS at all.

Never said that. What I object to is government telling fathers how much
they have to provide to support their children, when they they have to pay
it, and not allowing fathers any discretion to do the right thing. This may
surprise you, but I felt a sense of relief when my CS obligation expired and
I could support my children on my own terms. I paid for what they needed,
when they needed it, not on some artificially mandated government plan. I
think most divorced fathers would do the same thing. One of the problems
with the CS system is it is designed to forc e never married fathers into
compliance and previously married fathers get caught in the crossfire.



They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best interest of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best interest of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it is like to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to receive I don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To give rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.

Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for *both* having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But that won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.

Ask any politician what their position is on Women's Rights and they will
send you a detailed plan for how they want to help (read pander to) women.
Ask the same politicians what their plan is for Father's Rights and they
will ignore you or send you their position on Women's Rights. It's a zero
sum game!


As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights advocates are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness inherent in the
current system.

Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS payments.

The advocates for change are fighting for a system that exhibits fairness
and equality without gender bias, not lower CS payments.

In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
.net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

States set various definitions for basic support. My state allows for
a Self-Support Reserve for NCP's but will not award less than $50 per
month in CS regardless of the income level for anywhere from one to ten
children.



there is no excuse for any able-bodied person to not be able to provide
$50 a month for the support of their child.

How about a 16 year old father who has state mandated legal restrictions
on how many hours he can work?

There is a state that won't let 16 year olds work more than 10 hours a
month?

I guess I should have explained what I meant better. A 16 year old father
working a maximum of 15 hours per week at minimum wage grosses less than the
self-support reserve. But his CS obligation would be calculated based on
him working 40 hours per week, an amount of hours in excess of state law for
his age group. He would struggle to pay $50 per month.


Most often a 16 year old would be living at home and doesn't need the
self-support reserve.

Banty

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

there will be major problems. CP's can be nasty and reckless and get
protected by the no-fault system. If they had to be kind to their ex's to
get more money than the basics the entire system would get turned on its
head.

My Daughter's mother makes a good buck in health care, she's in no danger of
starving or being homeless!
Is it imperative that the government needs to step in with any heavy
legislation ?

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
y.net...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

States set various definitions for basic support. My state allows
for
a Self-Support Reserve for NCP's but will not award less than $50 per
month in CS regardless of the income level for anywhere from one to
ten
children.



there is no excuse for any able-bodied person to not be able to
provide
$50 a month for the support of their child.

How about a 16 year old father who has state mandated legal
restrictions
on how many hours he can work?

There is a state that won't let 16 year olds work more than 10 hours a
month?

I guess I should have explained what I meant better. A 16 year old father
working a maximum of 15 hours per week at minimum wage grosses less than
the
self-support reserve. But his CS obligation would be calculated based on
him working 40 hours per week, an amount of hours in excess of state law
for
his age group. He would struggle to pay $50 per month.


Most often a 16 year old would be living at home and doesn't need the
self-support reserve.

And the 26 year old teacher he got pregnant would have a full-time job with
healthcare benefits. So what is your point? The self-support reserve
should be applied selectively based on a father's age?