If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#501
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a childsupport 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 |
#502
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"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!! |
#503
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
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 |
#504
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?
"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. |
#505
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"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? |
#506
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"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? |
#507
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
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 |
#508
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
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 |
#509
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a childsupport debt?
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. |
#510
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
how to collect more child support | fathersrights | Child Support | 4 | September 6th 07 05:30 AM |
HOW TO COLLECT MORE SUPPORT | dadslawyer | Child Support | 0 | August 21st 06 03:40 PM |
Question on Child Support Debt | xyz | Child Support | 8 | October 20th 05 06:07 PM |
Phantom debt creation by child support bureaucrats | Edmund Esterbauer | Child Support | 0 | January 23rd 04 10:42 AM |
Outrage Over Plan To Wipe Child Support Debt | Greg | Child Support | 4 | December 10th 03 02:48 AM |