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

In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...


You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or
even if
it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter.

You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the dads
their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to ripping off
their own children?

Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live with
me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about the mother
games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions.


OK.

Sure, things like that happen. But I've seen the opposite too (and not all
teens are particularly good at reporting what's really going, let alone a
younger kid).
It occured to me - the delta the teen doesn't see may be going into a college
fund. Not that that was your situation.

But in general, the NCP does *not* know what the daily expenses and hassles are
and can get focusses on something like a boyfriend's smoking habit. It's
actually one reason why I've always thought a trustee or accounting would be
good. It might be an education for the NCP. Not all NCPs are rearing children
in their household to have a clue sometimes. And if the CP is siphoning off to
him or herself, that will be detected.

Banty

In article , Sarah Gray
says...

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...


You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or
even if
it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter.

You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the
dads their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to
ripping off their own children?

Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live
with me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about
the mother games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions.

At the same time, Bob, not *all* CPs are like that.
Just saying...

I think there are a lot of examples of *all* of the abuses and frauds we hear
about. On both sides. Being as we're talking about humans, and angry and
dissapointed humans often, at that.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...

You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or
even if
it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter.
You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the dads
their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to ripping off
their own children?

Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live with
me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about the mother
games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions.


OK.

Sure, things like that happen. But I've seen the opposite too (and not all
teens are particularly good at reporting what's really going, let alone a
younger kid).
It occured to me - the delta the teen doesn't see may be going into a college
fund. Not that that was your situation.

But in general, the NCP does *not* know what the daily expenses and hassles are
and can get focusses on something like a boyfriend's smoking habit. It's
actually one reason why I've always thought a trustee or accounting would be
good. It might be an education for the NCP. Not all NCPs are rearing children
in their household to have a clue sometimes. And if the CP is siphoning off to
him or herself, that will be detected.



Not always, Banty. There needs to be some kind of oversight,
particularly if NCPs are going to be held to such a high standard of
"responsibility".



--

Sarah Gray

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing. This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right? Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring for two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Look - *she's and the daughters* are the ones that have to deal with the effects
of all of these expectations. (Meaning also she's the one with the incentive to
increase earnings.) Did you read Bob's idea of lowering the standard of living
for *both* to put 600 bucks in the bank every month, becaue commingling funds
would be a greater sin than having a lower standard of living for even the older
daughter? What do you think of that?

The funds get comingled the minute she pays the landlord.

Banty

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...

You're not living there; you don't know what the money got spent on or
even if
it still wasn't spent for the benefit of your daughter.
You mean father's should not believe their children when they tell the dads
their mom's have transitioned from ripping off the fathers to ripping off
their own children?

Your assumptions are far off the mark. My daughter asked to come live with
me and she has given me more details than I wanted to know about the mother
games. She has volunteered a lot to confirm my suspicions.


OK.

Sure, things like that happen. But I've seen the opposite too (and not all
teens are particularly good at reporting what's really going, let alone a
younger kid).
It occured to me - the delta the teen doesn't see may be going into a college
fund. Not that that was your situation.

But in general, the NCP does *not* know what the daily expenses and hassles are
and can get focusses on something like a boyfriend's smoking habit. It's
actually one reason why I've always thought a trustee or accounting would be
good. It might be an education for the NCP. Not all NCPs are rearing children
in their household to have a clue sometimes. And if the CP is siphoning off to
him or herself, that will be detected.



Not always, Banty. There needs to be some kind of oversight,
particularly if NCPs are going to be held to such a high standard of
"responsibility".


Read my last paragraph again.

Banty

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

Of course! You yourself maintain that the NCP should *step up* and move to
the childs school district, get a two bedroom apartment, change jobs If need
be to be able to spend more time with the child. If you think the NCP should
maintain a different standard of living, even If they may not "have the
funds" shouldn't the CP?

In article , Shadow36 says...



If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

Of course! You yourself maintain that the NCP should *step up* and move to
the childs school district, get a two bedroom apartment, change jobs If need
be to be able to spend more time with the child. If you think the NCP should
maintain a different standard of living, even If they may not "have the
funds" shouldn't the CP?


She should increase to that income, and *more* to get the best life possible for
her kids.

That's what I think.

And the girls should share.

Banty

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


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right? Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?


After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.

More later--gotta get to school.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Shadow36 says...



If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

Of course! You yourself maintain that the NCP should *step up* and move to
the childs school district, get a two bedroom apartment, change jobs If
need
be to be able to spend more time with the child. If you think the NCP
should
maintain a different standard of living, even If they may not "have the
funds" shouldn't the CP?


She should increase to that income, and *more* to get the best life
possible for
her kids.

That's what I think.

And the girls should share.

Banty

The one flaw to your logic Is that you think everyone be It CP or NCP should
step up to a higher income. Thats a LOT more easier said than done. Didn't
you say In another post that you own some properties etc? I bet that, while
you may not be wealthy, you aren't hard up for money. That would explain
why you think "basic needs" for a child Is 50 dollar school pictures,
hundreds for summer camp, dance lessons, etc etc. It's just not so cut and
dry as the NCP should move, get a better job, maintain a two person
household on a single persons budget.
When the ncp's talk about "basic needs" we aren't talking about feeding
the kid cold cereal for breakfast, and mac and cheese for dinner and lunch
everyday.. We aren't talking about a couch to sleep on, but, If thats all
the ncp can provide, thats all they can provide! No amount of woulda,
coulda, shoulda can prevent someone from becoming an NCP against thier will.
and the same amount of woulda, coulda, shoulda can allow the NCP to provide
anything beyond thier means.

In article , teachrmama says...


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


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.

Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.

That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.

Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a trustee or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.

I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.

I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not being
divisible
between two kids in a household.

It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right? Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds to*
child 2.

If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?

The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?


After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?


The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.

Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.

Sure.

Remember, the *new* daughter has a poorer father. Apparently she's to have a
lower standard of living. Bob says - she has a share herself as to each child -
$400 apiece. OK. No argument there. She has that although she
"****KNEW****" about her earlier obligation to the older daughter. No argument
there.

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are to be
maintained at a different standard.

Banty