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

In article , teachrmama says...


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have
to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing
and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now
it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to
those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption
paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a substitute
for
parental attention.


It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
left alone by the system. But when one or both just
*cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
can be enforced by the court.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative
and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court.
However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that,
just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much
more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures)
let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of
the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the
time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the
kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she
*knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an
incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up?

How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're allowed to
do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement.



My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to
expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award
extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents?

For what purpose ... "just because". No.

Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?

Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
getting to the child(ren).

Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal
with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And
children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal
world when they are adults? Hmmmm.....

You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel about
*that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and acitivies
hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the poor
scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm (lemme
look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I guess
it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo.


And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a
child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are
women
given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when
they
initiate divorce 85% of the time?

I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother
is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my
parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish
that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged
their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and
recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart.

Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise
women
break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like they
felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or
they
needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the role
of
fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be.

And men do the same thing ... either the man or the
woman can choose to up and walk away from the
family.

Bob's point was that women are the ones most likely to use these excuses to
break up a marriage--not that men never do.

I do think he has a point there.

Banty

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

You're children should have *always* been relevant. That's
one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL
shouldn't be imbalanced" ... while I may have only specifically
mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children
are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis'
doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis'
and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around
with her new iPod.

"SOL"?

Banty ("**** outta luck" didnt' seem to fit...)

chuckle

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
|
| "Paula" wrote in message
| ...
| On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
| "Paula" wrote in message
|
...
|
| On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
| "Paula" wrote in message
|
...
|
| Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?
|
| I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
| psychological,
| and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in
these
| contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of
need
| within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
| "best interests of the children."
|
| Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have
| to
| challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were
"costs"
| associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child
rearing
| and
| you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs.
Now
| it
| seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to
| those
| factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?
|
| I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
| emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
| child development. Nurturing said development entails some
| cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
| uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.
|
| I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and
a
| child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
| raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption
| paying
| money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
| development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a
substitute
| for
| parental attention.
|
|
| It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
| things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
| left alone by the system. But when one or both just
| *cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
| child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
| can be enforced by the court.
|
| Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are
cooperative
| and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court.
| However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that,
| just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get
much
| more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures)
| let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40%
of
| the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the
| time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the
| kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because
she
| *knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an
| incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up?

Not to mention that there is the hidden incentive of the FOC to place the
child where the CS is maximized, since that will increase their federal
kickback.

|
|
| My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to
| expanding
| the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing,
food,
| transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
| expenditures.
|
| I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
| opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
| address.
|
| Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award
| extra
| money to CP's so they can be better parents?
|
| For what purpose ... "just because". No.
|
| Does increasing the amount of
| CS received help a parent to do their job better?
|
| Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
| to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
| getting to the child(ren).
|
| Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal
| with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And
| children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in
thereal
| world when they are adults? Hmmmm.....
|
|
| And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for
a
| child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are
| women
| given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors
when
| they
| initiate divorce 85% of the time?
|
| I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother
| is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my
| parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish
| that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged
| their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and
| recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart.
|
| Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise
| women
| break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like
they
| felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or
| they
| needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the
role
| of
| fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be.
|
| And men do the same thing ... either the man or the
| woman can choose to up and walk away from the
| family.
|
| Bob's point was that women are the ones most likely to use these excuses
to
| break up a marriage--not that men never do.
|
|
|

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


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in
these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of
need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have
to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were
"costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child
rearing
and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs.
Now
it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to
those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and
a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption
paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a
substitute
for
parental attention.


It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
left alone by the system. But when one or both just
*cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
can be enforced by the court.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are
cooperative
and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court.
However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that,
just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get
much
more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures)
let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40%
of
the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the
time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the
kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because
she
*knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an
incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up?

How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're
allowed to
do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement.

Ah, but the system right now does not do that, and parents who ask for a
lesser amount might be told that they have no right to deny children the
full amount that the system has decreed that they need.




My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to
expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing,
food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award
extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents?

For what purpose ... "just because". No.

Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?

Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
getting to the child(ren).

Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal
with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And
children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in
thereal
world when they are adults? Hmmmm.....

You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel
about
*that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and
acitivies
hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the
poor
scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm
(lemme
look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I
guess
it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo.

The figures used in that example were just round numbers to make a point.
They were not real numbers. You continually twist things to make it seem as
if anyone who would like to do away with lifestyle support based on salary,
and use a figure that covers the basic needs of children are advocating
forcing children into poverty. It's just not so. It must be nice to have
the amount of money you obviously must have so you can dictate how much
money must be available for what you consider to be *needs* that others
might not see as needs. As for your health insurance comment--not to
worry--children with NCPs in their lives *have* health insurance ordered by
the courts *on top of* the CS already paid. Even if it takes coverage away
from the irrelevant subsequent children.

In article , teachrmama says...


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


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in
these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of
need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have
to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were
"costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child
rearing
and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs.
Now
it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to
those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and
a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption
paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a
substitute
for
parental attention.


It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
left alone by the system. But when one or both just
*cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
can be enforced by the court.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are
cooperative
and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court.
However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that,
just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get
much
more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures)
let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40%
of
the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the
time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the
kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because
she
*knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an
incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up?

How about if they approach the judge with that? How about if they're
allowed to
do that, both with counsel, and make that a legal agreement.

Ah, but the system right now does not do that, and parents who ask for a
lesser amount might be told that they have no right to deny children the
full amount that the system has decreed that they need.

But in your scenario, the $950 and 25% is put in opposition to $650 and 40%.
Isn't the latter getting into joint physical custody?





My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to
expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing,
food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award
extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents?

For what purpose ... "just because". No.

Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?

Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
getting to the child(ren).

Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal
with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And
children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in
thereal
world when they are adults? Hmmmm.....

You might ask the working families with no health insurance how they feel
about
*that* statement. BTW, I don't think extra curricular sports and
acitivies
hobbies and some vacations are strictly a middle-class thing. Even the
poor
scratch that together, though limited to PAL and other programs. Hmm
(lemme
look..) yep, I didn't see of that in your proposal of "basic needs". I
guess
it's in "misc." right along with bedsheets and shampoo.

The figures used in that example were just round numbers to make a point.
They were not real numbers. You continually twist things to make it seem as
if anyone who would like to do away with lifestyle support based on salary,
and use a figure that covers the basic needs of children are advocating
forcing children into poverty. It's just not so. It must be nice to have
the amount of money you obviously must have so you can dictate how much
money must be available for what you consider to be *needs* that others
might not see as needs. As for your health insurance comment--not to
worry--children with NCPs in their lives *have* health insurance ordered by
the courts *on top of* the CS already paid. Even if it takes coverage away
from the irrelevant subsequent children.

But you forget my point about your "basic support". You don't even know what
*that* is. Do you think you could figure your neighbor-down-the-street basic
expenses?? I don't think I honestly could. Or better yet - how about they do
*yours*. If they fall short and you point out expenses they overlooked, you get
to hear "must be nice".

I simply object to this idea of basic needs which don't include actual needs
that just about every parent strives to get for their children. You might
think they're warm, fed plenty, and educated. But that's not enough.

Banty

Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
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...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.

I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.

Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty

I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state
and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.


OK...what if. You decided to to something else in your 50% of the time, too?

Banty


You mean if I moved out of state, violating a court order in the
process? I imagine I'd lose custody completely.

--

Sarah Gray

teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
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...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for
how CS is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the
same thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume
they won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption
by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid
for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out
of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's
private lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me
it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the
best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the
best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel
what it is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game -
To give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from
mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers
and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly.
But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it
seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands
have been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The
advocates for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties
with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making
decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with
different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child.
The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS
into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is
getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting
the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party
rule on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or
Dad #2 has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at
one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one
on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the
child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How
would it be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in
the same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of
the CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person." The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept
what is offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long
and futile. It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a
small shift in the tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody
will cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the
results are most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to
pay your wife's legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If
you ever intend to get remarried you are better off not having custody
of children. Divorced men without custody of children statistically
have a greater rate of remarriage than divorced men with custody of
children.
I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for
JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is
common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your
marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.

Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree
strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having
some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty

I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and
now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.

--

Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you
while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole wide
world")

One of those wonderful perks of paernthood that I wouldn't want to give up
for all the money in the world!! =c)



My point exactly. Parenting is it's own reward. Well, and punishment, at
times, but I guess I'll see more of that when she's a teenager

--

Sarah Gray

"Banty" wrote in

But you forget my point about your "basic support". You don't even know
what
*that* is.

Neither does the government!

Do you think you could figure your neighbor-down-the-street basic
expenses?? I don't think I honestly could. Or better yet - how about
they do
*yours*.

Better yet, how about the government does it and totally botch up the whole
process.
Government has no right to dictate our personal lives regardless of our
marital status!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
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...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.

I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.

Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty

I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state
and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.


OK...what if. You decided to to something else in your 50% of the time, too?

Banty


You mean if I moved out of state, violating a court order in the
process? I imagine I'd lose custody completely.


Oh more than *that*. Imagine the scene after a concerned neighbor calls
authorities about your kid.

Yet, your ex has gotten away with it.

Banty

In article , Sarah Gray says...

teachrmama wrote:
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
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...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for
how CS is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the
same thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume
they won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption
by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid
for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out
of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's
private lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me
it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the
best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the
best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel
what it is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game -
To give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from
mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers
and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly.
But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it
seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands
have been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The
advocates for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties
with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making
decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with
different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child.
The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS
into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is
getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting
the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party
rule on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or
Dad #2 has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at
one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one
on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the
child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How
would it be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in
the same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of
the CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person." The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept
what is offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long
and futile. It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a
small shift in the tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody
will cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the
results are most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to
pay your wife's legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If
you ever intend to get remarried you are better off not having custody
of children. Divorced men without custody of children statistically
have a greater rate of remarriage than divorced men with custody of
children.
I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for
JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is
common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your
marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.

Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree
strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having
some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty

I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and
now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.

--

Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you
while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole wide
world")

One of those wonderful perks of paernthood that I wouldn't want to give up
for all the money in the world!! =c)



My point exactly. Parenting is it's own reward. Well, and punishment, at
times, but I guess I'll see more of that when she's a teenager


Teen years overall actually have been pretty fun and easy going.

Although I have boy...

Banty