A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1401  
Old October 17th 06, 02:45 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

There is no easy pat answer to your question.

Yes there is. (see below)

To me, each situation
needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually

apply a
one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child

support
check
regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests

of
the
child.

MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever

parent
can
best provide for the best interest of the child by providing

the
best
environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...).

Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about

letting
the
parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making

reference
to
letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well,

they've
been
making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten

us!
It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows

better
than
a
parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing

are
the
people who support these fools!


Chris,

I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to

make
decisions impacting children are the parents. And...........

keeping
the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost
universally desirable.

I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges

that
rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have

observed
during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law
school graduates.

...........

Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a

bang.
But
then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill.

You
might
correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of

courts
that
actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would

you
care
to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get

a
free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?



Chris,

Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively.

No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is

with
courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP
custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case"
then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that
should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case.


Correction: One's personal income is not the business of "child support"
court. In fact, there is no reason for such court to exist in the first
place.


I understand your issue with this. As you stated above, it is the same
issue that I have as SD. Again the difference being that I am not a
party to the case. If I am not a party to the case, my $ should not
be considered. Parent'w whether they want to be or not, are a party to
supporting and providing for their kids.


Which has ZERO to do with forcing a man to hand his money over to a woman!
If my claim was false, then the woman would also have to hand her money to
the man in order to qualify as supporting/providing for her children. But
guess what, she DOESN'T.



My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the
NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by
two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges
proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide
information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or

go
to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to
the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to
address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am
not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The
courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been
in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot
speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand

then
proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels.

As far as this comment:

Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and

expect to get a free
ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."?

My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and

loose
with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards
residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide
not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as

income
for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP
income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX.
Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or
wellfare benefits.


I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from

socialist.
I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the

courts
to allocate in an inconsistent manner.


Keyword: inconsistent. I guess the difference between you and I is that

you
have no problem with the courts allocating other people's money whereas

I
DO! What you have described, regarding your issue with the courts, is

not
unlike what virtually ALL (NCP) fathers experience. If you agree to the
kourts controlling their money, then it follows that you should have no
problem with them controlling YOUR money.


I understand your perspective on this. But, what about the kids?


What about them?


I think that the differences is that my relationship to the situation
is totally voluntary and the courts have informed me repeatedly that I
am not a party to the case. Once a child is born, I believe that a
certain amount of the joint income of the parents should be used to
support the child.


That's all good and well, but let each parent that wishes to participate
make such decision......... NOT some unrelated fool wearing a black robe!
If a woman chooses to relinquish her parental authority over to some court,
that's her business. But she has no right to make that same decision for the
father.





As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their
parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if
courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP
income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The
more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they
are both responsible for.


If an existing amount of "child support" is sufficient to care for a
child, then what is the purpose of increasing it?


My answer to the above question is to provide the best possible care
for the child and to prepare the child for the future. Why should a
child have to live at a lower standard of living than their parents?


Because it's sufficient?


If Mom gets a raise, the kid gets a raise. If Dad gets a raise, the
kid gets a raise.


Spoken like a true stalinist.

I think the aggrivation lies with the NCP not being
able to control what the CP does with the increased CS. If courts must
be involved in a CP/NCP situation, I support strict accountability from
the CP on where the money goes. Annual audits should be required with
financial penalties applied if the CP miss spends the money or cannot
support where the money was used.


Only problem is judges are under no obligation to follow written laws.
Contrarily, they MAKE laws as they go.



If over time one party ends up making more,
and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child

with
the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation
in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and
there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there
is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns
more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops,

NCPs
actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I
believe that that element of the system is fair.


Oh my!


What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit
because I make good $.


Big deal. They're STILL extorting money from him.


Again, I understand the frustration. However, the courts only set the
CS level, they don't spend the money.


What the heck's the difference? They're STILL extorting it!

The money should only be spent
for the interests of the child. (school taxes, clothes, food,
utilities, housing, etc.....) CS should have to account for where the
money goes.


The income the NCPs partner is not considered
when calculating support.

I hope this clarifies my statement for you.


Sadly, it does.


Best regards,
Rags.


Chris,

Let me try to clarify a bit more. I have a big problem with the
courts telling people what to do with thier money. However, I have a
bigger problem with parents who don't provide for their children. I
have stated in previous postings that IMO the focus should be on the
kids. CPs who keep the NCP from the kids are wrong. NCPs who don't
engage with their kids are wrong. CPs/NCPs who do not provide the best
situation their resources will allow to provide environmentally,
emotionally, morally or financially for their kids are wrong.


And a father teaching his children that fathers are unpaid babysitters, just
visitors, and that mothers are to be paid to care for their OWN children is
morally wrong!

Sometimes a third party has to step in to ensure the kids are being
provided for addequately by the parents. As poor as they do at this
job, the courts are what our society has evolved to address this issue.

If all parents did the best they were capable of for their kids and
would put their kids first in unfortunate custody/visitation/ support
cases then the courts would not have to be involved.

As far as extorting money from NCP in my SSs case:

I gladly and voluntarily spend far more than the total formulated CS
level of $800/mo (NCP pays $350/mo) supporting my SS. We live in a
better, more expensive school district because we want the best
education we can provide for him. He will likely attend boarding
school for high school begining next year because from our observations
government schools are more interested in obtaining federal dollars
than educating kids. We drive newer, safer cars because we drive he
and his friends on a regular basis. We provide very expensive
medical, vision and dental care far above what is covered by insurance.
(Bio Dad has not payed his 50% of uncovered med expenses in more than
12 years though he has been repeatedly billed for them). We invest
significant resources to provide for his college education. All of
this I ( and his mom) gladly provide predominantly out of our
professional incomes and NCP contributes to in the form of CS.


You also get to raise him.

Interstingly while NCP complains and fights CS, he has plenty of
resources to spend on gadgets for his low rider and purchasing rare
game cards.


The two are unrelated.



If ALL parents would provide voluntarily for their kids, there would be
no need for the CS courts to exist.


Most fathers are PROHIBITED from providing by these very courts!

As frustrating as the whole
NCP/CP/family court system is, some parents must be forcably motivated
to provide for their kids.

The kids should not be the victims in these situations.


Yeah, well you're preaching to the choir.

I would love
to hear your perspective on how we could ensure that CP/NCPs provide
for their kids and keep the courts in the business of ruling on law
rather than making it.


I've posted it COUNTLESS times, but to give you the benefit of the doubt,
here it is again:

If each parent is 50% of the total amount of "parent", then each parent is
entitled to parent 50% of the time. For those who neglect the children
during their custodial time, criminal proceedings would be in order. Do you
know why this system won't work? Because "family court" (law enforcement)
won't LET it work. That's why.


Regards,
Rags



  #1402  
Old October 17th 06, 03:14 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
snicker More ASSumptions, Marg?


What ELSE is new?


"pandora" wrote in message
news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living
that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some

parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate

ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE

parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type

of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO
standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."

There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal

with
in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my

daughter
lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better

off.
He
lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car
and
lots of possessions my daughter didn't have.


Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to.
What a terrific parent you are, not.

The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the
appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through

too
high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they

create
inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only
perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is

also
the custodial parent receives money.


And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your
son
over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent.

CWQ








  #1403  
Old October 17th 06, 06:59 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"pandora" wrote in message
news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
...........

I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living

that
they can for their kids.
==
Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents
provide more than others.
It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate

ALL
parents spend money on their
child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE

parent
(NCP) does. It is also
notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of
parent, it has no mandate that
the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO

standard
of living is assured said child.
This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US
Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child."


There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal

with
in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my

daughter
lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off.

He
lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car

and
lots of possessions my daughter didn't have.


Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to.
What a terrific parent you are, not.


Kinda one sided don't you think? Implying it is up to a custodial father to
remedy inequalities in the CS system and giving the custodial mother a free
pass. Why don't you think the custodial mother should have provided more
for her custodial child to close the gap created in a split custody
situation?

Oh that's right, I forgot. You believe in gender differences creating
gender warfare and any solution should be based on Marxist/socialism
redistribution of resources. The Capitalist fathers need to pay the worker
mothers to make things equal, right?


The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the
appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through

too
high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create
inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only
perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is

also
the custodial parent receives money.


And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your

son
over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent.


I offered to let her come live with me too. Eventually she did. But her
living situation changed for parenting style reasons, not over money issues.


  #1404  
Old October 17th 06, 07:27 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Rags
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is entitled

to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to

income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility in
intact homes.


Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.


So let's just make a law enforcing it.


I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.


That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.


I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed in
the criminal or civil courts.



Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same
standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there should
be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But
I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be
available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.


Such "reason" to be determined by each individual parent, just as it is in
YOUR home.


The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

Regards,
Rags



I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.


More specifically, the best standard that the courts allow. Don't forget,
physical care is a small part of the total ingredients when it comes to
"standard of living".


Regards,
Rags
==



  #1405  
Old October 17th 06, 07:58 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Rags" wrote
........

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.

==
Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social
control are you willing
to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all
parents) provide the basics for their
children. Period. (More Below)
==
............
In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.

==
And in intact families?
==
.......
The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

==
When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should
become
divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They
are not even mentioned in the divorce decree.
It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to
such an extent that it is expected
as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state
control over them
flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in
exceptional cases.
==


  #1406  
Old October 17th 06, 09:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Rags
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
.......

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.

==
Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social
control are you willing
to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all
parents) provide the basics for their
children. Period. (More Below)
==



No I do not believe that doing the right thing should be or even can be
legislated. I also believe that the current system has created more
problems than it has solved.

...........
In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.

==
And in intact families?


I made a similar statement applying to intact families prior to the non
intact family statement. There should not be a different requirement
for intact VS non intact parental obligations.

==
......
The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

==
When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should
become
divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They
are not even mentioned in the divorce decree.
It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to
such an extent that it is expected
as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state
control over them
flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in
exceptional cases.
==


If more disolving families were led by parents like you and your
husband, there would be little need for the family courts system we are
dealing with now. I agree with your pespective on courts only being
involved in teh exceptional cases. Unfortunately the courts are
forcing all cases into the same solution box. Award custody to one
parent, force the other to pay........... the system itself builds
contention into broken family situations. Not a good thing.

Regards,
Rags

  #1407  
Old October 18th 06, 02:52 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Gini" wrote in message
news:SJ9Zg.3350$5h6.1113@trndny04...

"Rags" wrote
.......

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right

thing
to do.

==
Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social
control are you willing
to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all
parents) provide the basics for their
children. Period. (More Below)
==
...........
In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living

as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.

==
And in intact families?


I believe his position is the same. At least he's consistent, but
consistently wrong (concerning the above), mind you.

==
......
The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

==
When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should
become
divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They
are not even mentioned in the divorce decree.
It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to
such an extent that it is expected
as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state
control over them
flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in
exceptional cases.


Indeed! Children have been protected LONG before any "child support"
industry ever existed. And the abolishment of such indusrty will eliminate
not a SINGLE one of the protections.

==




  #1408  
Old October 18th 06, 02:53 AM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child

if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would

advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income

and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements

or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is

entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their

child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to

income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility

in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow

minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.


So let's just make a law enforcing it.


I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.


That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.


I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed in
the criminal or civil courts.


" L I B ", you got it right!




Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same
standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there

should
be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But
I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be
available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.


Such "reason" to be determined by each individual parent, just as it is

in
YOUR home.


The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?


Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.


Regards,
Rags



I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.


More specifically, the best standard that the courts allow. Don't

forget,
physical care is a small part of the total ingredients when it comes to
"standard of living".


Regards,
Rags
==




  #1409  
Old October 18th 06, 04:37 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Rags
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child

if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would

advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income

and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements

or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is

entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their

child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility

in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow

minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.

So let's just make a law enforcing it.


I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.


I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed in
the criminal or civil courts.


" L I B ", you got it right!


Pardon my ignorance on this. What does "L I B" mean?






The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?


Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.



Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?

Regards,
Rags

  #1410  
Old October 18th 06, 04:37 PM posted to alt.child-support,can.legal,can.politics,soc.men
Rags
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression


Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child

if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would

advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income

and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements

or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is

entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their

child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility

in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow

minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.

So let's just make a law enforcing it.


I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.


I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed in
the criminal or civil courts.


" L I B ", you got it right!


Pardon my ignorance on this. What does "L I B" mean?






The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?


Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.



Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?

Regards,
Rags

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! Dusty Child Support 4 March 8th 06 07:45 AM
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! S Myers Child Support 115 September 12th 05 12:37 AM
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children Dusty Child Support 0 May 13th 04 12:46 AM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM.


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.