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

Paula wrote:
On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 16, 10:36 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 16, 7:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama
says...
"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.
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.
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.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties
with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making
decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with
different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child.
The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS
into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is
getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting
the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party
rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or
Dad
#2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at
one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one
on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the
child,
but
for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How
would
it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in
the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of
the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available
to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children.
He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
Do you think they should be charged extra to make up for their seeming
inability to love?
Did I say that?
Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?
If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics CS
is
poverty.
What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I lived for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and poverty are 2
totally different things!!

Having *only* the basic necessities of life is close enough to poverty
to be the same to me.


Lucky you. Most of us to not have the luxury of being able to have that
mindset.

Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and which
ones can decide to provide only basics?
Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).
Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of Big Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient detail your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child. If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.
Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation (or skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new toy? (NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their first steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that joy--they
just need to send money) Right?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. If a parent wants to
maintain that connection they should be allowed to, and if the other
parent interferes that should result in a change of custody.

BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.
How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

Maybe if their mothers were willing to provide to the same degree as
they expect their children's fathers to, they wouldn't be having the
"rug pulled out from under them".

--

Sarah Gray

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 1:56 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently
as assumed
in
here..)
But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away
-
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real
changes they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
Banty
Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.
Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.
And the guys who just never show.
Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise.
No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.
Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?
Banty
Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".
This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.
That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.
YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough
with all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

It's YOU who has to live, every day, every hour, with what happens,
and it's YOU
planning and looking to the future and thinking about what is
happening with the
real flesh and blood human being in front of you, and her development
into some
kind of decent adult. It's YOU with **more** responsibility.

But if you don't buckle under each and ever time and he doesn't get
his pure
perfect way, you're 'driving him away'. Seen that.



He contributes his CS money, and that's it. And he doesn't
seem to care how much pain and confusion she's feeling
because of it.
Wish it could have been different. At least you have that. Are his
wages
garnished?
Nope, but they could be if I requested it. While he is prone to
playing games where he can, he provides the CS on time and
in full, and as long as it stays that way I will not request it.
That' great.

Maybe he really, totally, does not know what to do and does not feel
connected,
but at least recognizes this responsibility (or just the law)?

Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?

There may be some that would--not most.

I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person probably
would butt heads with.

I'm the wife of an NCP who did not know about his oldest daughter until we
had to of those infamous and irrelevant "subsequant children." I do not
think the system, ans it presently stands, is fair and balanced, and would
like to see some sweeping changes instituted--and I butt heads with Chris on
some of his stands!!

teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 1:56 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently
as assumed
in
here..)
But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away
-
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real
changes they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
Banty
Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.
Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.
And the guys who just never show.
Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise.
No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.
Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?
Banty
Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".
This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.
That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.
YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough
with all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares in
downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

It's YOU who has to live, every day, every hour, with what happens,
and it's YOU
planning and looking to the future and thinking about what is
happening with the
real flesh and blood human being in front of you, and her development
into some
kind of decent adult. It's YOU with **more** responsibility.

But if you don't buckle under each and ever time and he doesn't get
his pure
perfect way, you're 'driving him away'. Seen that.



He contributes his CS money, and that's it. And he doesn't
seem to care how much pain and confusion she's feeling
because of it.
Wish it could have been different. At least you have that. Are his
wages
garnished?
Nope, but they could be if I requested it. While he is prone to
playing games where he can, he provides the CS on time and
in full, and as long as it stays that way I will not request it.
That' great.

Maybe he really, totally, does not know what to do and does not feel
connected,
but at least recognizes this responsibility (or just the law)?

Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?
There may be some that would--not most.
I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person probably
would butt heads with.

I'm the wife of an NCP who did not know about his oldest daughter until we
had to of those infamous and irrelevant "subsequant children." I do not
think the system, ans it presently stands, is fair and balanced, and would
like to see some sweeping changes instituted--and I butt heads with Chris on
some of his stands!!



I have been doing some research, and it seems Michigan is supposed to
consider subsequent children when determining child support... it is
really unfortunate for people in your situation that not all states have
that...

--

Sarah Gray

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

*Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child
are
not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an
ex,
Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you
look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic
needs
of their children are met.

Oh dont' be silly I don't think by 'seeing' she's talking about looking
through
a spyglass or camera lens or something.

I don't either. How ridiculous!

If the custodial parent decided not to
be around for awhile, not come home for a few days, even though they're
"her
days", the kid would be in the foster care system and her ass would be
up
for
child endangerment. On the other hand, I've never known a CP who leaves
a
child
at an appointed place for visitation pickup (sometimes these ex's you
think
would just do the right thang if the gummit would leave them alone can
barely
stand to be in the same town with each other), gotten the call from the
friend
or other appointed person that the NCP didn't show, and NOT come to pick
them up
again. Kinda goes to that fundamental aspect of being a CP.

The key here is, what percentage of the NCP population are you referring
to?

Actually that's not 'key', that's an aside.

The *point* is that a CP can't just decide not to do "her days" without
serious
consequences, while the NCP *does* get away with it. I think Paula's in a
position to know that - her ex hasn't had charges of neglect; if she did
the
same, she would.

So if he spent more time with the kids, would he be justified in only
providing enough CS for basic expenses at the CPs (while, of course, paying
for the same basic expenses at his place)? Or is your point that ,because
he (or any NCP) *can* neglect their time with their children, that *all*
NCPs should pay the price for that with lifestyle, rather than basci need,
support?


Which more than offsets this complaint about the NCP's CS amount being
some kind
of parental "mandate" that the CP isn't similarly be beholden to.

So you *are* saying that because the NCP *can* neglect seeing his children,
he should be required to pay big money to the CP. Hmmmm........interesting
take..........


It's pretty straightforward; one parent has the child and the lion's share
of
responsibility for the child, half of the expenses go to the parent who
does
not, adjusted one way or the other accounting for income producing
ability.

Oh--ability--not actual income...Hmmm.....

Money is transferred every month, deal is done, nothing hanging. And
straightforward, especially when it comes to dealing with people estranged
from
each other, is what works all around.

And those NCPs who spend as much time as possible with their children pay
forthat time with their children with-----leftover money not used in a lrge
lifestyle CS obligation or basic expenses of their own. How much do you
think is left over asfter paying the CS award + child care (an add-on to
CS--not part of the original order) + health insurance (add-on same as child
care) ++ a percentage of unreimbursed medical (another add-on).


I've already commented that you must know some doozies to make the nasty
comments about NCPs that you make.

Oh come off it. I don't see Paula flipping out over imagined insinuations
that
all CP's don't do *their* part and what awful awful crowds people must run
with
to have their opinions on the matter. It's argument appealing to emotion,
and
it's getting pretty tiresome.

Yes, but Banty, you seem to assume that the majority of NCPs ae terrible,
responsibility-shirking cretins. I know very, very few of those--but I know
quite a few NCPs who have been pushed into economic disaster by unfair CS
awards, and no hope for a downward modification. The vast majority of both
CPs and NCPs are good, decent, honorable people. But the system treats
*all* NCPs like deadbeats! WHY is that acceptable to you? Do you really
think that those who do not want to handle the responsibility are going to
be forced to do so by the system?


So how about the NCP that waits and
waits and waits forthe child to be dropped off for visitation, and the
child
never comes, even though it is *his* weekend? So long as the CP hasn't
abandoned the child, that is ok? (and what % of the CP population do you
think acts in such a despicable way?)


Not the point at all. No one is saying it's "OK". But it doesnt' end up
with a
kid in foster care and a parent up on charges now does it. THAT's her
point.

Oh ,crap, Banty. It IS the point. All CPs are NOT punished for the
depradations of the few. But *all* NCPs are punished because of the bad
behavior of the few!



Yeah, that happens. And, that's *some* NCP's who wouldn't show. Some
some
some
some not all not all not all. (Why do I feel like I have to say that
even
though my paragraph in no way implies 'all NCPs are scum').

But if only *some* do these things, why are *all* NCPs being punished for
it? Why don't we have a system that deals only with those who need to be
dealt with? Sort of like the prison system deals only with those who need
to be dealt with. We wouldn't ever think of locking up everyone in a
certain segment of the population, would we?



No one is being 'punished'.

Perhaps from your perspective they aren't. That's so sad.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. net...
teachrmama wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 1:56 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...

On Nov 16, 12:13 pm, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 16, 10:39 am, Banty wrote:
In article
,
Paula says...
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and
hugely costly to
set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".)
Yes,
it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently
as assumed
in
here..)
But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul
wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to
rent.
to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away
-
a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they
ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real
changes they'd
need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or
forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
Banty
Actually I was speaking of situations such as my own
where the NCP has severed all contact with the child
(based upon an ultimatum regarding the financials --
"sign the thing as is or visitation is over") and does
not have a need to provide food, shelter, or anything
else because of never having contact with the child.
Yes. That happens. The "my way or the highway" thing.
And the guys who just never show.
Both of these types are living like a single person, or moving on
otherwise.
No
clue, no contribution. Sucks.
Do you ever get accused have having 'driven him away'?
Banty
Yep, I sure do ... and I bent over backwards attempting to
keep him involved. That ended when my DD decided that she
got to treat Mommy in the manner in which she witnessed
Daddy treating Mommy -- i.e. "Daddy ignores what you
say, so can I".
This when she spent an average of a couple hours a week
with him, and he _chose_ not to attend parent-teacher
conferences, doctor appointments, etc. He chose not to
co-parent, and I was left to do all of the parenting work.
That extra effort that I put into trying to keep him involved
ended when DD said what's quoted above. Especially
considering the fact that he's never been an active parent,
I can't abide by her being taught to disrespect and
disregard the only real parent she has ... that would have
disastrous consequences once she reaches her tween
and teen years.
YES see. See that's the thing that that can't be emphasized enough
with all
this talk of monetary control and monetary measuring and who shares
in downturns
(but not windfalls) and why-do-I-hafta-but-they-don'-hafta.

It's YOU who has to live, every day, every hour, with what happens,
and it's YOU
planning and looking to the future and thinking about what is
happening with the
real flesh and blood human being in front of you, and her
development into some
kind of decent adult. It's YOU with **more** responsibility.

But if you don't buckle under each and ever time and he doesn't get
his pure
perfect way, you're 'driving him away'. Seen that.



He contributes his CS money, and that's it. And he doesn't
seem to care how much pain and confusion she's feeling
because of it.
Wish it could have been different. At least you have that. Are his
wages
garnished?
Nope, but they could be if I requested it. While he is prone to
playing games where he can, he provides the CS on time and
in full, and as long as it stays that way I will not request it.
That' great.

Maybe he really, totally, does not know what to do and does not feel
connected,
but at least recognizes this responsibility (or just the law)?

Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?
There may be some that would--not most.
I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person
probably would butt heads with.

I'm the wife of an NCP who did not know about his oldest daughter until
we had to of those infamous and irrelevant "subsequant children." I do
not think the system, ans it presently stands, is fair and balanced, and
would like to see some sweeping changes instituted--and I butt heads with
Chris on some of his stands!!

I have been doing some research, and it seems Michigan is supposed to
consider subsequent children when determining child support... it is
really unfortunate for people in your situation that not all states have
that...

Yep--CS pays for sports that the older child never gets to participate in
and other extras that she never gets because the mother uses CS to support
the entire household. She has *never* worked. And our girls were denied
sports and extras for years because we could not afford them. On top of the
CS order, health, vision, and dental insurance run us a lot of extra money
per year, because his daughter has to be included on the policies. She has
*never* used any of the coverage. If she needed it, that would be one
thing. But she doesn't, and my husband has to pay for it anyway. MY
insurance covers the entire family just fine, but she cannot be on my
insurance. Once CS is over, that money will be back into our budget.
Subsequent children are children, too. Why don't people understand that?

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
snip


Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?
There may be some that would--not most.
I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person
probably would butt heads with.

I'm the wife of an NCP who did not know about his oldest daughter until
we had to of those infamous and irrelevant "subsequant children." I do
not think the system, ans it presently stands, is fair and balanced, and
would like to see some sweeping changes instituted--and I butt heads with
Chris on some of his stands!!

I have been doing some research, and it seems Michigan is supposed to
consider subsequent children when determining child support... it is
really unfortunate for people in your situation that not all states have
that...

BTW, as an interesting side note, when we found out about my husband's
oldest daughter and the probable amount he would be paying, I asked the case
worker how we were supposed to support our 2 children, and she told me that,
if I divorced my husband, they would be glad to help me get money for my
children, too. Disgusting, huh?

teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
snip

Just in case the regulars here decide to attempt to jump on
that last line ... if there is a problem that would affect his
ability to pay the CS, all he has to do is bring it to my
attention. I understand reality and would have no problem
with temporary downward-adjustment due to a significant,
long- or medium-term downturn in his income.
Wow they would jump on you for that?
There may be some that would--not most.
I am, for all intents and purposes, a CP, and the only one one here who
I've had a real problem with is Chris, who any reasonable person
probably would butt heads with.
I'm the wife of an NCP who did not know about his oldest daughter until
we had to of those infamous and irrelevant "subsequant children." I do
not think the system, ans it presently stands, is fair and balanced, and
would like to see some sweeping changes instituted--and I butt heads with
Chris on some of his stands!!
I have been doing some research, and it seems Michigan is supposed to
consider subsequent children when determining child support... it is
really unfortunate for people in your situation that not all states have
that...

BTW, as an interesting side note, when we found out about my husband's
oldest daughter and the probable amount he would be paying, I asked the case
worker how we were supposed to support our 2 children, and she told me that,
if I divorced my husband, they would be glad to help me get money for my
children, too. Disgusting, huh?



All in the name of "for the children", right?

The system is fuxored for nearly everyone involved....

--

Sarah Gray

On Nov 17, 8:57 pm, Banty wrote:
In article ,
Paula says...



THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.

That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child.

Damn good point.

A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP?

Nope

On Nov 17, 8:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 3:25 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

snip

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic
necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a reasonable-but-more-than-basics
CS
is
poverty.

What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I
lived
for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and poverty
are
2
totally different things!!

Having *only* the basic necessities of life is close enough to poverty
to be the same to me.

I think that if you had actually lived in poverty, you might not be
saying
that. Even during the most difficult times getting back on our feet
after
being kicked to the ground with the CS order, even when we had perhaps
$2.00
left at the end of the month, and prayed we had enough gas to get to work
to
pick up a paycheck, I knew we were not in poverty--just struggling to
make
ends meet, like thousands do every day. I would not even want to see a
CS
order that would leave families in that position--but I think that
including
enough for alll the "extras" is wrong, too.

Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty
level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics, and
which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide
only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state for
it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the state
to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of Big
Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient detail
your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Define "best interests of the children." That is the umbrella under
which
the CS system does all that it does right now--but there is NO
difinition--it's an excuse parading as a reason.

The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs. There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs
that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual child.
If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has additional
costs to be covered within CS.

Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation (or
skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and
watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new toy?
(NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to
send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their first
steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the
field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that
joy--they
just need to send money) Right?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. If a parent wants to
maintain that connection they should be allowed to, and if the other
parent interferes that should result in a change of custody.

But if the CP has all the money for such expenses sent to her each month,
WHAT does the NCP use to pay for such things?

BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

Oh, so we are back to NCPs not being important enough to consider and
subsequent children being less important than first children.

And we're back to the word twisting ... wasn't it you who tried to
say that doesn't happen much around here?

I'm not twisting your words at all, Paula. You don't want to change the way
things are for fear of "pulling the rug out from under" the children that
the system sees as important.

That is NOT what I said at all ... again with the word-twisting,
emotion-inducing prose.

There are children who are *dependent* upon the current
system. Any changes that are being discussed should be
looked at particularly from their perspective because they
would be *most* affected by change to the system.

You cannot even begin to see that there are
children that the system does not see as important--that the system
considers irrelevant--who do not even have a rug to pulled out from under
them! When do these children get some consideration? When do *my* chidren
become relevant, and deserving of a rug?

You're children should have *always* been relevant. That's
one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL
shouldn't be imbalanced" ... while I may have only specifically
mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children
are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis'
doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis'
and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around
with her new iPod.

On Nov 18, 6:06 am, Paula wrote:
On Nov 17, 8:57 pm, Banty wrote:





In article ,
Paula says...

THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.

That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child.

Damn good point.

A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

Are the requirements other than financial for the NCP?

Nope

make that "not in my case"