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

You have got to see this to believe it



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 17th 07, 12:53 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default You have got to see this to believe it

If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their privacy:
http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126

my responses are as pueblonative
  #2  
Old March 17th 07, 01:03 AM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default You have got to see this to believe it

On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126

my responses are as pueblonative


And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.

  #3  
Old March 17th 07, 02:43 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default You have got to see this to believe it

Relayer wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126

my responses are as pueblonative


And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.



Maybe it is a bunch of bull, but look at it this way: at least the hip
waders aren't as heavy.
I agree about that, and I don't think you can limit it to custodial
parents. Ask some of your married friends: if they really came down and
budgeted things, how much do they spend that is directly on the
children? Is that a consistent number that stays the same each and
every month?
We also have a few of the "assumed necessities" that custodial parents
talk about. For instance, car insurance. I don't know about you, but
my mom didn't buy me a car, and she didn't get car insurance for me
either. Same goes with cable, internet, those sorts of things, that
seem to work their way into the list of necessities (I know the
libraries aren't the things that they used to be because of the
wonderful attitude we have towards public education in this country, but
they still have the Internet).
  #4  
Old March 17th 07, 02:59 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default You have got to see this to believe it


"Relayer" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their

privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126

my responses are as pueblonative


And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.


The CS guideline income shares model are typically based on what are
referred to as the Betson Estimates using the Rothbarth Methodology. The
2006 Betson Estimates for child rearing as a proportion of household
expenditures a

1 child - 25%
2 children - 37%
3 children - 44%

The problem with the CS system is the NCP fathers pay their share of these
child rearing estimates and the CP mothers have no obligation to provide
their share. The CP mothers are screwing their own children by not
providing what the guidelines "assume" they will need to spend to rear their
children. The children suffer and the fathers get blamed for the children
not having enough money to provide for all their needs.


  #5  
Old March 17th 07, 03:04 AM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default You have got to see this to believe it

On Mar 16, 8:59�pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Relayer" wrote in message

oups.com... On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their


privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126



my responses are as pueblonative


And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.


The CS guideline income shares model are typically based on what are
referred to as the Betson Estimates using the Rothbarth Methodology. *The
2006 Betson Estimates for child rearing as a proportion of household
expenditures a

1 child - 25%
2 children - 37%
3 children - 44%

The problem with the CS system is the NCP fathers pay their share of these
child rearing estimates and the CP mothers have no obligation to provide
their share. *The CP mothers are screwing their own children by not
providing what the guidelines "assume" they will need to spend to rear their
children. *The children suffer and the fathers get blamed for the children
not having enough money to provide for all their needs.


Elementary my dear Watson

  #6  
Old March 17th 07, 03:09 AM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default You have got to see this to believe it

On Mar 16, 8:43�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Relayer wrote:
On Mar 16, 6:53?pm, John Meyer wrote:
If you're not too shy to register, by the way, and no disrespect to
anybody who values their privacy:http://forums.mansfieldnewsjournal.c...?p=23126#23126


my responses are as pueblonative


And besides John, the shared income model is a bunch of BS anyway.
Like the CP spends that kind of dough on the kid? NO ONE in the world
will convince me it takes 25% of your net for a kid or 33-36% for 3
kids. Child Care/Insurance aside, because that is assessed seperately.
What they do is say you have a two bedroom apartment and two kids. All
the cost are "split" three ways, when in fact the kids share a bedroom
and probably (especially if little) eat far less...cost of
transportation is less..everything is less..it takes a LOT less to
maintain a child than an adult and they view the childrens living
expenses as if they were adults sharing everything equally. When each
kid gets a bedroom, TV, cable, car, and eats as an adult, they cann
say that.


Maybe it is a bunch of bull, but look at it this way: at least the hip
waders aren't as heavy.
I agree about that, and I don't think you can limit it to custodial
parents. *Ask some of your married friends: if they really came down and
budgeted things, how much do they spend that is directly on the
children? *Is that a consistent number that stays the same each and
every month?
We also have a few of the "assumed necessities" that custodial parents
talk about. *For instance, car insurance. *I don't know about you, but
my mom didn't buy me a car, and she didn't get car insurance for me
either. *Same goes with cable, internet, those sorts of things, that
seem to work their way into the list of necessities (I know the
libraries aren't the things that they used to be because of the
wonderful attitude we have towards public education in this country, but
they still have the Internet).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Dude, I paid my daughters car insurance and it was ordered by the
Court because it was a "school expense"....

But really, I have been married twice..3 kids by my first wife and 2
by my second. When I divorced my first, my oldest child was 12 and
youngest 7. I was the sole breadwinner and provider. During my second
divorce, (the kids are younger..4 and 6), my wife (now ex) actually
said "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH IT COST TO RAISE KIDS!"..she forgot I
was the sole provider of the first three for 21 years and lived with
them for 12 and paid for everything. I was also sole provider for the
other two little ones. Evidently, I had no idea where my money was
going and how much of it went to the kids and I know nothing about
child rearing and the associated cost involved.

  #7  
Old March 17th 07, 03:24 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default You have got to see this to believe it

Relayer wrote:

Dude, I paid my daughters car insurance and it was ordered by the
Court because it was a "school expense"....


Maybe my mother should have gotten on my deadbeat father (who owes
approximately 40,000, by the way) a little harder. Ah well; thanks to
that, I'm not nearly the butterball that I should be. I have a few
pounds around the middle, but I can walk pretty much anywhere I need to.
But here are two questions I have to ask:
1. If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost
of the child support and the monetary payout was lower?
2. Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? Did you have to pay
on one which included the mother? If so, and if the mother wasn't quite
that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums
were actually subsidizing her driving habits?



But really, I have been married twice..3 kids by my first wife and 2
by my second. When I divorced my first, my oldest child was 12 and
youngest 7. I was the sole breadwinner and provider. During my second
divorce, (the kids are younger..4 and 6), my wife (now ex) actually
said "YOU HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH IT COST TO RAISE KIDS!"..she forgot I
was the sole provider of the first three for 21 years and lived with
them for 12 and paid for everything. I was also sole provider for the
other two little ones. Evidently, I had no idea where my money was
going and how much of it went to the kids and I know nothing about
child rearing and the associated cost involved.

  #8  
Old March 17th 07, 03:49 AM posted to alt.child-support
Relayer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 301
Default You have got to see this to believe it

On Mar 16, 9:24�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Relayer wrote:


But here are two questions I have to ask:
1. *If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost
of the child support and the monetary payout was lower?


That was in addition to the child support order. It was in no way
computed in and the payout was raised, not lowered. It was viewed by
the court as a valid educational expense since she had to drive to
school (although public transportation was readily available). To be
honest, I would of paid it anyway, since she is my daughter. But I
would of prefered to do it on my own and not be ordered by the court
to do so. It makes it look to my daughter like it was forced out of
me, which was the intent of the mother anyway.

2. *Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? *Did you have to pay
on one which included the mother? *If so, and if the mother wasn't quite
that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums
were actually subsidizing her driving habits?


No, she wasn't included. She, thankfully, had to pay her own (which
she did out of child support, since she didn't work and didn't stick
up any 7-11's or rob any banks that I know of..except me of course)

Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year
over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it
was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was
"mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was
"hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in
addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and
clothes..where exaclty was the CS going?

This was in addition to the 41% of my net I was paying her for CS. I'm
telling you, Illinois is friggin brutal.

  #9  
Old March 17th 07, 03:59 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default You have got to see this to believe it

Relayer wrote:
On Mar 16, 9:24�pm, John Meyer wrote:
Relayer wrote:


But here are two questions I have to ask:
1. �If you were ordered to pay it, was it computed into the total cost
of the child support and the monetary payout was lower?


That was in addition to the child support order. It was in no way
computed in and the payout was raised, not lowered. It was viewed by
the court as a valid educational expense since she had to drive to
school (although public transportation was readily available). To be
honest, I would of paid it anyway, since she is my daughter. But I
would of prefered to do it on my own and not be ordered by the court
to do so. It makes it look to my daughter like it was forced out of
me, which was the intent of the mother anyway.

2. �Which car insurance were you ordered to pay on? �Did you have to pay
on one which included the mother? �If so, and if the mother wasn't quite
that careful of a driver, couldn't you argue that some of the premiums
were actually subsidizing her driving habits?


No, she wasn't included. She, thankfully, had to pay her own (which
she did out of child support, since she didn't work and didn't stick
up any 7-11's or rob any banks that I know of..except me of course)

Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year
over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it
was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was
"mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was
"hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in
addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and
clothes..where exaclty was the CS going?

This was in addition to the 41% of my net I was paying her for CS. I'm
telling you, Illinois is friggin brutal.



Some places are better, some places are worse.
Colorado, for instance:

Good: Uses Shared Income.
Allows reduction in child support for bona fide reasons to improve
yourself.

Bad: Allows retroactive child support all the way to the child's birth.
No way to stop child support if paternity fraud is proven (currently
trying to change that with SR 56).

  #10  
Old March 17th 07, 04:04 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default You have got to see this to believe it

Relayer wrote:
Dude, the mother was such a rip-off artist that I paid in ONE year
over $300 for ink jet cartridges for the family printer, because it
was needed for school. Problem was, and the kids confirmed this, was
"mom" used the printer almost exclusively. Another insane expense was
"hot lunches" for school. You know..LUNCH...aka..FOOD....yep..in
addition to CS...and the final one..SCHOOL CLOTHES...yep...food and
clothes..where exaclty was the CS going?



Another thing, and this is not to mitigate your loss in anyway.
One of the best explanations of karma I heard was in college. We all
know about the part of "everything you give coming back to you trifold".
But there's another face. Part of the punishment of karma is that you
are the person you choose to be. In short, one of the biggest karmic
punishments for your ex being a lying, thieving degenerate sucking off
of productive people. . . is the fact that she is a lying, thieving
degenerate sucking off of productive people. Would you like to live
like that?
Of course, it doesn't help when the people are too stupid to realize
that they're being punished, but oh well.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 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.