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 |
#1391
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message news:XrmdncThib_LLa7YnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:5FwYg.23041$H7.7532@edtnps82... pandora wrote: "Ken Chaddock" wrote in message news:SiUUg.12141$N4.7462@clgrps12... pandora wrote: "Phil" wrote in message thlink.net... A couple of decades ago, most men and women alike supported equality. Bull****. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support. Or, put another way, autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice... He had an opportunity for HIS choice to not be a parent. It is his problem that he didn't. (ANd obviously, if SHE is pregnant, then he already made his choice). Equality. apparently "equality minded" women don't agree with you Marg...quelle surprise ! Then they're wrong. I consider what I wrote to be equality given the situations individuals find themselves in. Men don't get to make decisions about abortion or gestating as that situation never happens to or in their bodies. One can only make decisions regarding one's own body, not another's. If women have the right to choose if they become parents, men [should] have that right too. There is a connection between legalizing abortion for women and ending of paternity suits for men. Only in the small minds of bitter men who don't want to act in a responsible manner. Sheesh! Also in the mind of the (then) President of the National Organization For Women...and many other equality minded women as well, too bad you're not included in their ranks... I wouldn't consider them to be equality minded then but rather women who wish to give men special perks. One might wonder why they would do that. I don't. I taught my sons to be responsibile when they were 13. I'm sure you've made them into great doormats... They are far from doormats although they DO understand responsibility and don't push their responsibility onto others. What happened to YOUR teaching? I was always taught that equality meant that individuals and groups ended up having the same legal rights and abilities... Then you were taught wrong or you understood the lesson wrong. Everyone has the same rights under the law. A man can have an abortion should he need one. However, no man has ever needed one since men don't get pregnant. And the law cannot given people abilities they don't have. Then you are saying that it is perfectly ok for a man to drop his newborn child off at a firestation, no questions asked, and walk away, thus divesting himself of any responsibility for that child, since mothers of newborns are able to do that. Right, Marg? |
#1392
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message ups.com... P Fritz wrote: Rags wrote: Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message roups.com... Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message legroups.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. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You may be right. I like most on this forum have my biases based on my own experiences with family law courts. I try to focus on the best interests of the kids as an attempt to stay in the center (between CP and NCP) on this issue. BTW. I usually don't sit the fence on anything. The only correct way is to establish a base minimum and divide by two. I favor what the states pay for foster care as the base. Fritz, That of course would be the simple way to address the issue. However, what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income. You want these fools dictating how YOU spend YOUR money? Regards, Rags |
#1393
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message ups.com... P Fritz wrote: Rags wrote: Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message roups.com... Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message legroups.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. You talk out of both sides of your mouth. You may be right. I like most on this forum have my biases based on my own experiences with family law courts. I try to focus on the best interests of the kids as an attempt to stay in the center (between CP and NCP) on this issue. BTW. I usually don't sit the fence on anything. The only correct way is to establish a base minimum and divide by two. I favor what the states pay for foster care as the base. Fritz, That of course would be the simple way to address the issue. However, what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income. This is where I disagree with you. No child has a *right* to improved circumstances just because a parent increases his/her earnings. If the parents remain married, nobody tells them what to spend on their children--certainly not the courts. Why should divorced fathers be ordered to provide lifestyle advantages that married parents are not required to provide? If you want parents to provide lifestyle enhancements LET THEM BE PARENTS. Parents involved in their children's lives are far more likely to provide for their children above the level of basic needs than are parents who are shut out of their children's lives except as occasional visitors and wallets. |
#1394
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message oups.com... Gini wrote: "Rags" wrote .............................. However, what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income. == "Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to such accomodation and no parent in an intact relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child. Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and noncustodial parents alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to income. Period. It should be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in intact homes. Gini, I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food, clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow minor children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the parents. How would anything else work? As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up. Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing to do. Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the benefits of that success along with my wife and I. That is because you are there and involved! If you were kicked out of the house and told you were now needed for nothing but tyour wallet, and were given very little access to your child, you might not feel as strongly. Let the father BE the father and see how quickly money will be spent on the child. Let CS pay only for the basics, and let the NCP provide the extras--instead of thelling him "I, as CP, have decided that my child will take up fencing and you will be providing $100 per month to cover the expenses." How demeaning to be only a wallet, and to have no say in how that money is spent! Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there should be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint income within reason. If you can make it a law for intact families, then I won't disagree. But it has to be for everyone, and those who lose jobs, become ill, etc, with resultant loss of income, have to be punished the same--facing loss of licenses, jail, etc, whether from intact or broken households. I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. Absolutely! When they are permitted to BE parents! |
#1395
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08... "Rags" wrote ........... I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and lots of possessions my daughter didn't have. Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to. What a terrific parent you are, not. The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also the custodial parent receives money. And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your son over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent. CWQ |
#1396
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
snicker More ASSumptions, Marg?
"pandora" wrote in message news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08... "Rags" wrote ........... I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and lots of possessions my daughter didn't have. Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to. What a terrific parent you are, not. The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also the custodial parent receives money. And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your son over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent. CWQ |
#1397
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Tracy" wrote in message . .. "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "pandora" wrote in message ... You've never seen families fall on hard times? Your lack of experience is showing. I don't consider single mothers to be a family. Why? Even if the children are grown and out of the house, those children plus their parent(s) make up a family. It doesn't take both parents remaining married until death parts them to make tham a family, and what if the "single mother" is single because her husband passed away? Aren't those who remain a family? When both parents die the remaining children are still family. One of the major problems I see in society today is that words no longer mean what they used to mean. To me a single mother is a never married woman who has had a child out of wedlock. A woman who has a child but who's spouse has died is a widow. A woman who was married and had a child is a divorcee. We cannot call every woman, including lesbians with children, without a man in her life a single mother. Another single woman is a woman whose exhusband does not support his children - something that ****es off taxpayers. |
#1398
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Gini" wrote in message news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08... "Rags" wrote ........... I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." Aint' THAT an understatement. The ONLY thing mandated is that a man hands cash to a woman. This says absolutely NOTHING about supporting any child, let alone providing a standard of living, to repeat you. |
#1399
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message oups.com... Gini wrote: "Rags" wrote ........... I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." Gini, I am no constitutional scholar, but your perspective sounds good to me. But....... In the small percentage of situations where parents do not provide for their kids, how do we ensure that children are supported by their parents? Can't be done since it is impossible to force someone to perform an action prescribed by law. Regards, Rags |
#1400
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message oups.com... Gini wrote: "Rags" wrote .............................. However, what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income. == "Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled to such accomodation and no parent in an intact relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child. Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and noncustodial parents alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to income. Period. It should be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in intact homes. Gini, I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food, clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow minor children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the parents. How would anything else work? As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up. Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing to do. So let's just make a law enforcing it. Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the benefits of that success along with my wife and I. That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let other parents raise their children how THEY want. Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there should be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint income within reason. Such "reason" to be determined by each individual parent, just as it is in YOUR home. I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that they can for their kids. More specifically, the best standard that the courts allow. Don't forget, physical care is a small part of the total ingredients when it comes to "standard of living". Regards, Rags == |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 07:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 01:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 02:35 AM |