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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#311
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in children)--that extra $100 per month should be accounted for--Johnnies Little League fee, field trip to San Francisco, 3 Green Day CDs--whatever--to make sure that the extra is being spent on Johnnie--not Mom--not other siblings--not new boyfriend. How difficult is that? Just the amount over and above basic support--the lifestyle nonsense that the court requires to be paid but doesn't require to be spent on the child. That's the best idea I've read here to date! Accountability for anything above the basics, we should have the right to know that our money is being spent on our children. If they want more money, we should have the right to know where the first $400 went? Thats actually where the potential problem arises, who determines if the benifit justifies the cost? If Johnnie lives with Mom the household needs about $25K to stay above water in most areas of this country. Thats about 12.5K or $500 per month per parent to support Johnnies share. How much does Johnnie benifit from having a nicer home, a safer school, a nicer car to ride in, better tasting food in the fridge, cable TV and internet, savings to allow for emergencies, better heath insurance on mom, life insurance on mom, etc? The addition of more people and more income creates economics of scale that Johnnie benifits from does that mean that the child support should go down because Johnnie became cheaper to support? Whats to stop the CP from saying that they use the money to meet the fixed expenses, because honestly the fixed expenses in any household are larger than any normal NCP's child support award. Even if you go to a by share basis who determines what the household buys because Johnnie wants it and what is bought because Step-dad and Johnnie like it. If the amount of Johnnies child support is less then his share of the mortgage, utilities, and food does that give the NCP the right to demand what the CP spent their own salary on because of the fact that the child support shifted money that the CP would have otherwise spent. What on earth are you talking about? Johnnie's share of housing is the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom apartment. He does not owe a percentage of the cost of buying a house! Dad most assuredly does not have any responsibility to kick in for mom's life and/or health insurance. You sound like a money-grubber in this one, ghost! "If I can say that Johnnie wants it, then Dad should have to pay." How ridiculous! The government only requires a certain minimum level of provision for a child--if it's good enough to require of married parents, it's good enough to require of unmarried parents. The fact that Johnnie might benefit from it is not a good enough reason to force one segment of the population to pay for what another has no requirement to provide. If both parents are actively involved in their child's life, there is a much better chance that both will *want* to provide these things--and the child will be a common bond. The giant flaw in CS calculation methodology and the CS guidelines is CP's are allowed to pretend their per child expenses exist in a vacuum. When a woman has children with two men she is allowed 1/2 of her living expenses against one child, with the other 1/2 being her own marginal expenses. And then she can charge the other half of her marginal living expenses against the second child and that CS order. In essence with this and other child rearing expenses considered based on shared expenses within the CS calculation methodology the system allows women to show 100% plus of their own marginal expenses against child rearing costs and pay nothing for their own expenses when multiple CS orders are in place. The CS calculation method allows the CP mother to have zero marginal costs to support herself. Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. But moms in the vice since the basic costs of support are higher for three as compared to just two. I can see why a courts would side with the mom in order to protect the kids from getting hurt in the crossfire. I can't. I can't see any reason why courts should be biased. Kids are not being protected when one of their parents is being screwed by the law. Of course the costs are higher for 3 than 2--but not so much higher that a mother deserves 2 full CS awards to cover those costs. The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. 1. Mom 2. Child A 3. Father of child A 4. Child B 5. Father of child B In a negotiation for child support between mom and father of child A? I don't think so. Why should child B and father of child B be involved at all? How asinine! Are you being dense on purpose? Parents of child A (that's 2 people) deal with the needs for child A (that's person number 3) Parents of child B (that adds dad, who is person number 4) deal with the needs for child B (that's person number 5). If you still can't understand this, perhaps you should consider giving up teaching. Actually, Moon, that is NOT what ghost said in his post. He said that all are involved in the negotiations--not just mom and dad A for kid 1 and mom and dad B for kid 2. Read it again. Um, no, that's NOT what he said. Read again {portions not relevant to this particular issue snipped, reference for full post at top of quoted portions] "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Yuck, that definately sucks. I can see a serious issue where two (or more) fathers are involved, since neither father would want to pay above the minimun to support his kid. ....... That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. Ghostwriter He says nothing about all 5 people being in the same negotiation. There are 5 people in total. 3 of those people are the various parents of the various children. There are noegotiations about CS. Ghost is proposing that there SHOULD be negotiations about CS--that it would make for a better system than the one we have today. He is proposing that the parents negotiate monies paid above the basic support level--the level of support that children require for food, shelter and clothing. Here is the post you picked and chose phrases from: ****That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. However, I still think that a legally mandated minimum (based on all the children in the household) followed by a negotiated agreement with the judge placing some of the adults (based on their discresion) income into escrow and freezing collection of any bills that go past due in the process would likley be the best way forward. Even if all three adults have to be beaten over the head by a mediator (selection by elimation), that still seems the best way to protect the interests of society as a whole while still respecting the ability of humans to make better choices than a law book.**** The legally mandated minimum is based on all the children in the household. The amount each father pays now becomes part of a negotiation among all 3 parents involved. It's really not that hard to understand. So you're suggesting that the father of Child A should be part of the negotiations about child support for Child B? Aren't you the one who deemed that asinine? I didn't suggest it, Moon. Ghost did. Go drink some coffee and come back when you can focus a bit better. Nothing wrong with my focus, Teach, and I don't drink coffee past noon, because of the caffeine. Don't know what would help you, then. Maybe paying closer attention to the thread. |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
In spite of what you say here, ghost, you are so doggone focused on money that it's not even funny! Parents owe their children support--NOT jsut MONEY. If mom decieves the father of the child and does not inform him that he is a father for years and years, and he has married and has another family, thet fool of a selfish, self centered woman should have NO POWER WHATSOEVER to dictate how much she can take the man for. She should get to LISTEN when he talks, and nothing more. No negotiation! He should have the option to pay minimum support--and more if and when he wants to. No matter how much higher his income is than hers. The child is simply unfortunate to have such scum for a mother. That frees tha father to be as kind and loving as he wants to be, but keeps his family safe, too. When parents divorce, 50/50 custody should be ths law. Money should not enter the picture unless mom has been a stay-at-home mom devoting herself to family while dad is the breadwinner. At that point a negotiation should take place so mom can develop the skills she needs to support herself and her children. That's only fair. But, if both parents work. then they need to work things out before they split up so that the children are taken care of. Dump it on them--no divorce until you get it settled. No attorneys, no court intervention. A mutually agreeable counselor. But YOU are the parents--get the job done. Where one parent is going to have full custody--if it is over the objection of the other parent, then the one claiming the kids pays for the kids. If she wants help paying for things, then share the children, too. I agree with you that seeing adults work out their differences is a wonderful example. It would be far better if these differences were worked out within the marriage, so fewer divorces took place. I was reading this article yesterday where a celebrity was asked about whether she was going to start dating again. Her comment was that she was going to be more selective in who she went out with now, and that there would be no sex for at least 6 months. Whew--what a wonderful message: It's ok to risk creating a child out of wedlock as long as you wait 6 months before doing so. And look where this wonderful lack of a moral code has brought us as a society. And the family court system is not even beginning to help solve the problem. It is making it worse by giving women a far superior position than men in almost every situation. Take away any vestige of that and put them in a position where they and they alone have the power to makt things work, and we will see an almost immediate change. And, ghost, I still desagree that things will work if you force every adult involved into the negotiations. How would you handle this? Woman has 5 kids by 4 dads. Negotiation would involve: Dad 1, his wife ( kid by mom 1 and 2 by his wife) Dad 2, his ex wife, his current wife, his former mistress (1 kid by mom 1, 1 by ex wife, 1 by current wife, 1 by mistress) Dad 3, his 3 exes, (1 by mom 1, 1 by ex 1, 1 by ex 2, 1 by ex 3) Dad 4, his current wife, (2 by mom 1, 2 by current wife) That would be 12 adults negotiating for 14 kids. Salaries Mom 1--0 doesn't work and neither does current live-in boyfriend Dad 1--$35K/year Dad 2--$100K per year Dad 3--$44Kper year Dad 4--$26K per year Now, ghost, who should pay how much? How would you negotiate this out? Should Dad 2 pay the most to make sure that all of mom 1's kids have an equal lifestyle? Should the other children of the fathers live lower lifestyle's than mom 1's kids so that all of HER kids are equal? Should all 26 people involved live the exact same lifestyls/ (Perhaos set up a commune and all share equally) How would you work this out equitably? Think it doesn't happen? I KNOW this family! I know several that could very easily fit into this family tree, most of the foster kids dont have family trees so much as bushes. Currently each father has been ordered to pay something on the amount of 25% of there income. So currently, assuming all the dads pay thats 25% of $200K or about $50K. I would suggest that once the fathers were aware of each others existance they have a much stronger case that mom 1 is taking them for an unreasonable amount of money. Any negotiator picked with input from these men would likley take a dim view on neither adult in mom's household working. Most of the men would gladly band together and demand that they receive some of the economics of scale that the courts is currently giving to mom. If mom had to accept an unbiased negotator rather than the easily manipulated written law then she would have little choice but to get a job. I would think that most of the fathers would demand that her employment be a written part of the agreement. A negoatior with a history of allowing either side to get away with a lot of crap would simple be eliminated early in the selection process. The negotiator then spends a few months interviewing everyone seperatly and collecting all of the income information and writes up an agreement. He can visit the children in the house and demand a list of expenses from mom. Based on that information and an evaluation of what mom's skills are worth on the market, he can write up a support package that allows the household to maintain a resonable lifestyle without robbing the dads blind. If mom could make $20K a year answer a telephone somewhere, then a 40% reduction in support would allow the same lifestyle if she were forced to work. All parties get a copy and a month to submit comments, the final agreement is then drafted with appeals allowed only on the basis of malpractice not because you thought you could have gotten more or payed less. The lawyer fees are payed by a portion of the support amount. The payment is deduced by a bank that then sends out a single check each month to mom. If mom was unwilling to maintain a job I would have her held in contempt the same if one of the dad quit to dodge support. Likley a father with a lot of kids by different women would be party to several agreements, if the NEGOTIATOR of a second agreement thought that the amount of a prior agreement was unusally high, then it would up to them to contact the orginal negotiator and seek an explaination. A negotiator would be able to bring an admistrative hearing to question the amount in front of a judge, who could then throw out the previous agreement if it was found to be unreasonable detramental to another household. The negotiator protects the kids interests and a judge determines if they made unreasonable assumtions while doing so. Human judgement subject to review being the only way I can see to protect everyone in this situation. Ghostwriter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |