A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1391  
Old October 17th 06, 04:36 AM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 04:39 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 05:16 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 05:27 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 07:29 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
pandora
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 07:37 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 12:12 PM posted to alt.child-support,soc.men
enquiring minds
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 12:54 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 01:36 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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  
Old October 17th 06, 02:31 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.