"Child Support" money?

In article ,
says...

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.
====
Actually, many states do have such statutes. The problem is that they are never
enforced. Florida's statutes specifically forbid the CP from using CS for
her/his personal expenses but it's window dressing--one of those "pretend
remedies" enacted to make it appear the state gives a damn.
====
====


nm

Fighting For Kids wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

Fighting For Kids wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?

How much longer are you ordered to pay child support, Chris?

"Chris" wrote in message news:83Psb.333$6G3.233@fed1read06...
"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01, Jon says...

So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

====
Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
he
needs a drink and a lottery ticket?

EXCELLENT !

====

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

====
FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
payments just as easily as late payments.

Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
ARE starving........ LEGALLY !

===
===

How much longer are you ordered to pay child support, Chris?

"Chris" wrote in message news:83Psb.333$6G3.233@fed1read06...
"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01, Jon says...

So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

====
Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
he
needs a drink and a lottery ticket?

EXCELLENT !

====

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

====
FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
payments just as easily as late payments.

Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
ARE starving........ LEGALLY !

===
===

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===

Mrs Indyguy
====
====

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===

Mrs Indyguy
====
====

In article , TeacherMama
says...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
===
Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
===
===

In article , TeacherMama
says...

Fighting For Kids wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

What state do you live in, FFK? I think mandatory mediation is a
great idea! Does it seem to work well? Any stats on that?
===
Florida has it. I'm sure it has limited worth, however.
===
===

Typical moonie mode.......turning a thread into 'about her"
"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Moon Shyne wrote:
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
remark.

That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.
Can you address the response to your own point, or not?