Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Rags" wrote in message
s.com...

Phil wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:RMOWg.1128$UJ2.923@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and
"non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as
a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't
agree
that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't
suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone
refers to
him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do
anything.

Right


HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label,
he IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved -

Thus, he can take his children ANY time he wants.

Within reason, remembering that the mom is entitled to equal time, of
course.

In your dreams. NCPs are lucky to get every other weekend and a few
holidays. I believe Chris was using sarcasm.


I know of some ex's who would call at 10am on a mother's day demanding
the children for that day, without regard to if the mother already had
plans with the children for mother's day.

This proves what, exactly?
Ans: NOT A DAMN THING.
The more you post the more apparent it becomes that you know nothing but
inconsiderate assholes. Perhaps you should start running with a new
crowd.


Consideration on both sides would be expected.

Oh, I get it. Dad gets 4 days a month and is inconsiderate if he wants
more.
Of course, CPs *always* work in the best interests of the children
(/sarcasm)
Phil #3

Phil,

I certainly understand your frustration. We deal with with our version
of it on a regular basis with my SS's visitiation situation.

To me, the solution to the issue discussed above is as much effective
communication as anything else. Any time there is anything but 50/50
time with each parent there is usually a problem with fitting kid
handoff/visitation into both parents schedule conveniently.

The only situation that I have direct knowledge of that has solved this
issue is with both parents residing in the same school district where
the child spends alternating Mon-Sun with each parent and keeps the
same school and friends.

And when they DON'T reside in the same school district, should the father or
the mother get the child; and why?

Holidays are split on an even and odd year
basis. Changes are worked out between the parents on a case by case
basis. In this case, there is no child support paid by either parent
to the other. Some $ does change hands to cover costs for a jointly
owned home. How the parents worked this out is beyond me. Both are
more patient and are better people than me

In our case the issue is effective and timely communication of NCP's
wishes for schedule changes or additional visitation. NCP and CP live
in two different states. CP usually receives a request for changes or
additions to visitation with very little notice. When there has been
enough lead time, CP has worked with the request.

Regards,
Rags



[snip]

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
s.com...

Phil wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:RMOWg.1128$UJ2.923@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and
"non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as
a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't
agree
that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't
suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone
refers to
him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do
anything.

Right


HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label,
he IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved -

Thus, he can take his children ANY time he wants.

Within reason, remembering that the mom is entitled to equal time, of
course.

In your dreams. NCPs are lucky to get every other weekend and a few
holidays. I believe Chris was using sarcasm.


I know of some ex's who would call at 10am on a mother's day demanding
the children for that day, without regard to if the mother already had
plans with the children for mother's day.

This proves what, exactly?
Ans: NOT A DAMN THING.
The more you post the more apparent it becomes that you know nothing but
inconsiderate assholes. Perhaps you should start running with a new
crowd.


Consideration on both sides would be expected.

Oh, I get it. Dad gets 4 days a month and is inconsiderate if he wants
more.
Of course, CPs *always* work in the best interests of the children
(/sarcasm)
Phil #3

Phil,

I certainly understand your frustration. We deal with with our version
of it on a regular basis with my SS's visitiation situation.

To me, the solution to the issue discussed above is as much effective
communication as anything else. Any time there is anything but 50/50
time with each parent there is usually a problem with fitting kid
handoff/visitation into both parents schedule conveniently.

The only situation that I have direct knowledge of that has solved this
issue is with both parents residing in the same school district where
the child spends alternating Mon-Sun with each parent and keeps the
same school and friends.

And when they DON'T reside in the same school district, should the father or
the mother get the child; and why?


Chris,

As some historical personage of liturature significance once said,
"There in lies the rub".

There is no easy pat answer to your question. To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Regards,
Rags

Chris wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:RMOWg.1128$UJ2.923@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
. earthlink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
as.earthlink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
. pas.earthlink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07. ..

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07. ..

"teachrmama" wrote in message
m...

"Rags" wrote in message


legroups.com...

Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to
your
comments

through

all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that
money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY

concern

that

anyone
should
have

is

whether or not a child is being neglected

(starved,

beaten,

etc.)

Short

of

abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it

is

absolutely
NOBODY'S

business

how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused,

neglected

or

exposed

to

unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the

parents.

The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is

born

out

of

wedlock

emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion

is

the

death

knell

of

rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact
bio

family

is

best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a

distant

second,

and

an

involved, caring, responsible and accountable

single

parent
household
third, with the options degrading in

desirability

from
that

point

on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting.

Where

might that

fall

on

your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be

covered

by

the

"mutually

respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of

couse

only

applies

if

the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful

monogamous

relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent

(CP)

and one

in

the

NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed
the
50/50

mutual

custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is

NOT.

Mutually

respectful

50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP

labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the

concept

of

50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing

to

reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take

the

other

50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS
the

one

who

ceded

sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles.

Are

YOU

willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or

even

"drug

addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch

potato"

or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least

a

little

something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement.
I've

seen

people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who

receives

child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions

a

person

took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other
hand,

some

labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if
they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which

I

object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons,
or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a

label

that

someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and
"non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the

chilod

support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree

that

the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't

suddenly

become

unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers

to

him

as

NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do
anything.

Right



HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he

IS

forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved -

Thus, he can take his children ANY time he wants.

Within reason, remembering that the mom is entitled to equal time, of
course.

I know of some ex's who would call at 10am on a mother's day demanding the
children for that day, without regard to if the mother already had plans
with the children for mother's day.

Consideration on both sides would be expected.


Apparently, this is how you would operate. But the vast majority of CP
mothers would NOT. They would deny the father access to his children outside
of the court schedule in a second! What you describe is a situation where
CP/NCP does not exist.



Obviously, you don't know stumpy's history.



and there are too
many divorvced, NCP fathers who manage to stay involved who would also
refute your statement.


Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition?
I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work.
Phil #3

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

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
s.com...

Phil wrote:
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:RMOWg.1128$UJ2.923@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

[snip]

Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and
"non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on
the
chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor
as
a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still
don't
agree
that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't
suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone
refers to
him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do
anything.

Right


HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such
label,
he IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved -

Thus, he can take his children ANY time he wants.

Within reason, remembering that the mom is entitled to equal time,
of
course.

In your dreams. NCPs are lucky to get every other weekend and a few
holidays. I believe Chris was using sarcasm.


I know of some ex's who would call at 10am on a mother's day
demanding
the children for that day, without regard to if the mother already
had
plans with the children for mother's day.

This proves what, exactly?
Ans: NOT A DAMN THING.
The more you post the more apparent it becomes that you know nothing
but
inconsiderate assholes. Perhaps you should start running with a new
crowd.


Consideration on both sides would be expected.

Oh, I get it. Dad gets 4 days a month and is inconsiderate if he
wants
more.
Of course, CPs *always* work in the best interests of the children
(/sarcasm)
Phil #3

Phil,

I certainly understand your frustration. We deal with with our
version
of it on a regular basis with my SS's visitiation situation.

To me, the solution to the issue discussed above is as much effective
communication as anything else. Any time there is anything but 50/50
time with each parent there is usually a problem with fitting kid
handoff/visitation into both parents schedule conveniently.

The only situation that I have direct knowledge of that has solved
this
issue is with both parents residing in the same school district where
the child spends alternating Mon-Sun with each parent and keeps the
same school and friends.

And when they DON'T reside in the same school district, should the
father or
the mother get the child; and why?


Chris,

As some historical personage of liturature significance once said,
"There in lies the rub".

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Regards,
Rags

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

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

After an 8 hour hearing the first judge (Oregon) we dealt with prefaced
his ruling with the statement "I hope everyone feels better now because
I am going to do what I always do". At that point I stood up and asked
him why, if he was not going to apply his judgment to this particular
case, he did not just tell us his ruling when he first sat (Mental
dialogue: his FAT ASS) on the bench that morning instead of wasting
everyone's time and money. He told me to sit down, be quiet and
threatened to have me removed from the court room. I replied that as a
layman his statement would seem to provide reason for an appeal. He
told me to go ahead and appeal and that if his judgment was changed on
appeal it would have no impact on him. This was my first lesson that
judges are not required to have particularly good judgment, be
adequately intelligent or be focused on the broader public good.

The second judge (an Oregon CSP Administrative Court Judge) was angry
at the fact that I (the Step Dad) made 300% more then she did and 500%
more than NCP dad as indicated on my previous year's tax return. She
repeatedly made comments referencing my income and that I had a very
good year the last year and don't really need the child support money.
She also made a statement along the lines that she was a judge and I
did not make nearly that much. Her demeanor made it abundantly clear
that she was not interested that the CS money was justified. I
reminded her that I was the SD and that the CS had nothing to do with
me. This just ****ed her off more.

No consideration was given to the fact that as Step Dad I am "not a
party to the case" and, therefore, logically my income is not relevant
to the case, or that my previous years income was significantly
inflated by the forced sale of stock options and a 49 week severance
package (paid late in the year) due to broad semiconductor industry lay
offs and that at the time of the hearing a year later I was still
unemployed.

I drew the conclusion that these two judges and , through guilt by
association, all family court judges in Oregon are more interested in
sucking on the tit of the tax payer than actually adding anything of
value to society. It does not take an intellectual giant to "do what I
always do". Anyone who has that perspective has no business with
access to a position of authority that has influence over other
people's lives.

Nothing frustrates me more than the thought that these idiots have even
a modicum of control over my life.
But........................................ **** happens and short of
investing every resource I have in appeals or publishing a never ending
sequence of full page news adds highlighting the idiot behavior of
presiding judges there is not much I can do about it.

The only thing that repaired my opinion of judges was a move to
Williamson County TX. You don't want to default on CS, screw around on
your spouse, neglect your kids or have multiple out of wedlock children
with multiple partners and expect to get a free ride on the tax payer
or on someone else's check book. If you do these things the judges
will hold you accountable and the result of your actions will be very
expensive and very unpleasant.

In general, I am OK with the decisions of logical judges. I am not OK
with the decisions of lazy or stupid judges. As tax payers we pay
these people to be the best of the best and to make sound and fare
decisions on a case by case basis. We don't pay them to "do what they
always do".

Regards,
Rags

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support
check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting
the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than
a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

After an 8 hour hearing the first judge (Oregon) we dealt with prefaced
his ruling with the statement "I hope everyone feels better now because
I am going to do what I always do". At that point I stood up and asked
him why, if he was not going to apply his judgment to this particular
case, he did not just tell us his ruling when he first sat (Mental
dialogue: his FAT ASS) on the bench that morning instead of wasting
everyone's time and money. He told me to sit down, be quiet and
threatened to have me removed from the court room. I replied that as a
layman his statement would seem to provide reason for an appeal. He
told me to go ahead and appeal and that if his judgment was changed on
appeal it would have no impact on him. This was my first lesson that
judges are not required to have particularly good judgment, be
adequately intelligent or be focused on the broader public good.

The second judge (an Oregon CSP Administrative Court Judge) was angry
at the fact that I (the Step Dad) made 300% more then she did and 500%
more than NCP dad as indicated on my previous year's tax return. She
repeatedly made comments referencing my income and that I had a very
good year the last year and don't really need the child support money.
She also made a statement along the lines that she was a judge and I
did not make nearly that much. Her demeanor made it abundantly clear
that she was not interested that the CS money was justified. I
reminded her that I was the SD and that the CS had nothing to do with
me. This just ****ed her off more.

No consideration was given to the fact that as Step Dad I am "not a
party to the case" and, therefore, logically my income is not relevant
to the case, or that my previous years income was significantly
inflated by the forced sale of stock options and a 49 week severance
package (paid late in the year) due to broad semiconductor industry lay
offs and that at the time of the hearing a year later I was still
unemployed.

I drew the conclusion that these two judges and , through guilt by
association, all family court judges in Oregon are more interested in
sucking on the tit of the tax payer than actually adding anything of
value to society. It does not take an intellectual giant to "do what I
always do". Anyone who has that perspective has no business with
access to a position of authority that has influence over other
people's lives.

Nothing frustrates me more than the thought that these idiots have even
a modicum of control over my life.
But........................................ **** happens and short of
investing every resource I have in appeals or publishing a never ending
sequence of full page news adds highlighting the idiot behavior of
presiding judges there is not much I can do about it.

The only thing that repaired my opinion of judges was a move to
Williamson County TX. You don't want to default on CS, screw around on
your spouse, neglect your kids or have multiple out of wedlock children
with multiple partners and expect to get a free ride on the tax payer
or on someone else's check book. If you do these things the judges
will hold you accountable and the result of your actions will be very
expensive and very unpleasant.

In general, I am OK with the decisions of logical judges. I am not OK
with the decisions of lazy or stupid judges. As tax payers we pay
these people to be the best of the best and to make sound and fare
decisions on a case by case basis. We don't pay them to "do what they
always do".

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang. But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?


Regards,
Rags

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

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

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support
check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting
the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than
a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

............

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang. But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?



Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.

My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:

Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?

My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.

Best regards,
Rags.

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

snip for length

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Why? Why do you see this as fair? Why is it fair that the NCP pays more
when the CP decides to quit work and be a stay at home mom? Why should she
get a bigger chunk of his paycheck because she chooses not to work and
therefore her income goes down? I don't understand youir reasoning on this.


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I don't think that spouses of either NCP or CP should be considered, unless
the CP (or NCP) is totally supported by the spouse. Then something needs to
be done.

But then, I don't think the courts should ever be a part of any of it unless
there is not way for the parents to work it out. I think most people would
be able to work it out themselves if the system did not interfere the way it
does.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Why? Why do you see this as fair? Why is it fair that the NCP pays more
when the CP decides to quit work and be a stay at home mom? Why should
she
get a bigger chunk of his paycheck because she chooses not to work and
therefore her income goes down? I don't understand youir reasoning on
this.


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I don't think that spouses of either NCP or CP should be considered,
unless
the CP (or NCP) is totally supported by the spouse. Then something needs
to
be done.

But then, I don't think the courts should ever be a part of any of it
unless
there is not way for the parents to work it out. I think most people
would
be able to work it out themselves if the system did not interfere the way
it
does.

Simple solution: Since each parent is 50% of the total amount of "parent",
then each one has the child for exactly 50% of the time. But guess what,
"family court" judges are not bright enough to figure this out.

"Chris" wrote in message
news:EKaYg.1277$UJ2.895@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length

As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for. If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.

Why? Why do you see this as fair? Why is it fair that the NCP pays more
when the CP decides to quit work and be a stay at home mom? Why should
she
get a bigger chunk of his paycheck because she chooses not to work and
therefore her income goes down? I don't understand youir reasoning on
this.


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $. The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I don't think that spouses of either NCP or CP should be considered,
unless
the CP (or NCP) is totally supported by the spouse. Then something needs
to
be done.

But then, I don't think the courts should ever be a part of any of it
unless
there is not way for the parents to work it out. I think most people
would
be able to work it out themselves if the system did not interfere the way
it
does.

Simple solution: Since each parent is 50% of the total amount of "parent",
then each one has the child for exactly 50% of the time. But guess what,
"family court" judges are not bright enough to figure this out.

And I have always felt that 50/50 custody, pay your own expenses should be
the default. Except when there are extenuating circumstances.