"Child Support" money?

And you don't see anything wrong with that???

Mel Gamble

Tiffany wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message
...
And do you consider your child "visiting" while in your home? Why would
a child in a home with their parent be considered "visiting" in your
mind?

Mel Gamble

No, my child isn't visiting.... she is here 100% of the time. Not 4 days a
month.

If a ncp is financially strapped I stated that the extra money that could be
saved on the extra bedroom would probaly be better spent on the child in
other forms. And yes, if a kid only sees one parent 4 days a month, trust
me, even the kid feels like a visitor. Ask one. I did. They don't feel as
though the NCP's home is 'their' home.

T

And you don't see anything wrong with that???

Mel Gamble

Tiffany wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message
...
And do you consider your child "visiting" while in your home? Why would
a child in a home with their parent be considered "visiting" in your
mind?

Mel Gamble

No, my child isn't visiting.... she is here 100% of the time. Not 4 days a
month.

If a ncp is financially strapped I stated that the extra money that could be
saved on the extra bedroom would probaly be better spent on the child in
other forms. And yes, if a kid only sees one parent 4 days a month, trust
me, even the kid feels like a visitor. Ask one. I did. They don't feel as
though the NCP's home is 'their' home.

T

Maybe the NCP could afford more...

Tiffany wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message
...
No seperate bedroom needed??? Why should the child feel any less
important at home with one parent than with the other? Maybe you'd also
suggest a diet of gruel while at home with the NCP???

Mel Gamble

If that is all the NCP can afford, sure.

....if the CP believed in fair play and children having a right to both
their parents...

WTF is gruel anyways? You make due
with what you have....

Unless you can get big-daddy gubmint to give you some of what somebody
else should have...

if you can't afford extra bedrooms, you don't get
them.

Unless you can get big-daddy gubmint to give you some of what somebody
else should have...

A child needs quality time with both parents, not there own bedroom.

Maybe if the child was GETTING quality time with both parents, the NCP
could be allowed to spend on the child as he sees fit...

And the comment was made in regards to a NCP that only see's the child 4
days a month.

Wouldn't want to upset the status quo, now would we....

Yes..... that is all but visitor statis. See my previous post
to you.

Which did not state whether you believe such a situation is right...

Mel Gamble

T

Tiffany wrote:

Your Agonizer Please wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" wrote:
Gini52 wrote:
Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
but there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending." ==
==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.

disagree on the housing. even if the paying parent is noncustodial they
still have to maintain housing for that child too, even if its only used
4
days a month.

As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
bedroom
if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue
that a
ncp must have an extra bedroom?

T

Maybe the NCP could afford more...

Tiffany wrote:

Melvin Gamble wrote in message
...
No seperate bedroom needed??? Why should the child feel any less
important at home with one parent than with the other? Maybe you'd also
suggest a diet of gruel while at home with the NCP???

Mel Gamble

If that is all the NCP can afford, sure.

....if the CP believed in fair play and children having a right to both
their parents...

WTF is gruel anyways? You make due
with what you have....

Unless you can get big-daddy gubmint to give you some of what somebody
else should have...

if you can't afford extra bedrooms, you don't get
them.

Unless you can get big-daddy gubmint to give you some of what somebody
else should have...

A child needs quality time with both parents, not there own bedroom.

Maybe if the child was GETTING quality time with both parents, the NCP
could be allowed to spend on the child as he sees fit...

And the comment was made in regards to a NCP that only see's the child 4
days a month.

Wouldn't want to upset the status quo, now would we....

Yes..... that is all but visitor statis. See my previous post
to you.

Which did not state whether you believe such a situation is right...

Mel Gamble

T

Tiffany wrote:

Your Agonizer Please wrote in message
...
"The Dave©" wrote:
Gini52 wrote:
Supporting the mother is supporting the child. I know what you mean
but there's no sane or reasonable way to enforce this.
=====
Of course there is. Our government requires us to maintain receipts
for all tax deductions for, what--7 years? We call it insane and
unreasonable but the government has no problem requiring us to do it.
There is no reason a CP should not be subject to audit if there is
reason to believe CS is being misused. All she needs to do is keep a
shoebox for receipts should there be a question. This would not apply
however, if the amount ordered is in line with the actual reasonable
costs of a child. In that case, there is little room for
"discretionary spending." ==
==

Trying to be reasonable here, but if we did do this (and I think we
should), I would not expect 100% of CS to be literally directly applied
to the child. Something along the lines of 75% to 80% would be fine
with me. Factor in (real) costs in housing, etc., also.

disagree on the housing. even if the paying parent is noncustodial they
still have to maintain housing for that child too, even if its only used
4
days a month.

As a ncp, is it really necessary to pay the extra money for an added
bedroom
if your kid only comes over 4 days a month? Something wrong with the kid
bunking on a blow up mattress in the living room? Is it a legal issue
that a
ncp must have an extra bedroom?

T

You are correct, except for one thing...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

A choice she made...

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

snip


At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full
custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn
kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that
******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just
make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids
make me..."

Mel Gamble

Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me,
poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help
support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about
how the sytem is taking advantage of me.

....the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the
NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will.

Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one
that would be???

Mel Gamble

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron

You are correct, except for one thing...

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:03:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

A choice she made...

Moon Shyne wrote:

"Cameron Stevens" wrote in message
...

snip


At one time I *WAS* able to pay my CS directly. I can still pay it
electronically, in fact the payments are scheduled right through to December
2004. The Legislative Body should be able to legislate that CS is required.
The CS Agency should have a place to pursue arrears. The problem *I* see
with the system is that while the amount pursued is based on income, the
amount does not float with the income but rather is a cold harsh number,
enforced without concern for the circumstances of the people involved.

This is not about telling you how to raise your children, and if the CP and
NCP come to an agreement it should be respected by the courts/system. It is
not the NCPs that have the necessary level of responsibility that the system
should be involved with. The problem is that a system that begins to care
about the circumstances of the people involved becomes expensive to operate.
Without the system's help there is a significant number (this could be 1%
and still be significant) of children who are not voluntarily supported but
the NCP. The system, when automated - as technology might allow the control
required - becomes threatening and a discomfort to the user of the system
but how does one implement a system that is changable, for every case, which
are ALL DIFFERENT without the costs becoming astronomical.

The system, as it stands, does not serve the needs of the child. It exists
under this premise because it was designed to serve the responsible mother
whose husband had taken off and left her destitute. Helpless, she needed
money to remain at home and exist and welfare was not prepared to pick up
the tab. The system was designed to equalize the incomes so that the CPs
lessened ability to find work of equal value would not present to the child
an grass-is-greener perspective on the now occational world of the NCP.
After all the NCP (father) makes all the big money. This is the logic of the
system. This is the foundation of it's original purpose. Very respectible
from a 1960's point-of-view.

There's a huge difference from that "design" to today's reality. We need the
system to drop the prejudice of the woman being unable to find work of equal
value (or boyfriend/new husband to subsidize)

Why would you transfer the responsibility for the children to some new
boyfriend/husband? Why not transfer it to some new girlfriend/wife of the NCP?

and protect the child's real
best interest, the relationship with BOTH parents (not money as presumed byt
the system). The amounts involved need to appreciate that there are hills
and valleys to life and that professional momentum and success can be
affected by speedbumps and semi-trailers on the highway of life. The CP must
take responsibility for budgetting their money and understand that, just as
they would need to do if married to the NCP, planning for a worst-case is
essential.

Doesn't the NCP have to do the same budgeting and planning?

The father may lose his job, may go on disability and may need to
work someplace else and while she may not appreciate his position he may
just burn out and need to take a seriously less stressful and lower-paying
job to simply survive..

And all of the same may well be true for the CP, who, in addition to working to
supply her share of support for the children, has the additional workload of the
hands on care for the children for the majority of the time.

...and now chooses to moan about. "Poor me, poor me...I demanded full
custody of these damn kids and now I have FULL custody of these damn
kids. I am SOOO stressed out, but I'll be damned if I'll let that
******* share evenly in the work no matter how much he begs. I'll just
make him pay more while I whine about how stressed these danmed kids
make me..."

Mel Gamble

Hmm..sounds like more of what you write about all the time. Poor me,
poor me... I didnt want custody of the kids now I have to pay to help
support them. I just can't handle this so now i'm going to cry about
how the sytem is taking advantage of me.

....the CP is moaning about a custody situation she demanded, while the
NCP is moaning about a situation forced on him against his will.

Oh, and one would gladly trade places with the other - guess which one
that would be???

Mel Gamble

There is a very clear but mislead impression that men walk away from a
marriage unscathed or smelling like roses. While some wealthy people have
teh power to bend the system to thier will, the bulk of the fathers/NCPs do
not and those fathers are negatively impacted by the process of divorce
itself. Bankrupcy is pursued by many fathers (NCPs) as a necessity,

Just as it is pursued by many mothers as a necessity.

not as a
shirking of responsibility and the over all impression of the father being a
"Deadbeat Dad" is unfair if not a persecution in itself. A fine upstanding
employee may, if the employer is biased or mislead, become recognised as a
burden on the company, a criminal of sorts, when the garanshee notice
arrives.

In this day and age where nearly all child support orders are via wage
assignment? Somehow, I doubt that the company won't recognize it for exactly
what it is - SOP.

It's shameful to the father, whether his payment is reasonable or
not.

I will always advise that falling behind in CS is to be avoided at all
costs. It's difficult to stay ahead of it sometimes but it should be the
focus. If you need to contact the CS agency, take the tiem the hour off to
negotiate a repayment schedule will save your skin later on. Even so, the
system remains a fickle beast that is more prone to nip once and devour it's
prey in the next blink of an eye, just as the prey was ready to fead the
beast forever without the need for a fight.

Cameron

Time to get rid of all those mirrors.....

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

Time to get rid of all those mirrors.....

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 12:38:12 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

It's not being nasty - when you see a flying pig, you don't say "My,
what a strange bird...", you YELL "Hey, look - it's a freaking flying
pig!" Sometimes the obvious is just too obvious to dance around about.

Mel Gamble

Gee I see a deadbeat... and another and another..

Fit on, comprehension off....

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have sole
custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I have
them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air mattress
and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still call it
camping out.


Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now,
dumbass!!!!

I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything
directly related to you!!!!

Fit on, comprehension off....

Mel Gamble

Fighting For Kids wrote:

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 04:42:55 -0600, "Moon Shyne"
wrote:


Take your feet out of your mouth - I'm the CP of 2 children, and have sole
custody - they don't "come over to spend time" here, they *live* here. I have
them 100% of the time, and yes, there are times that we get out the air mattress
and put it in the living room, and watch movies all night - and we still call it
camping out.


Hey!!!! Why dont you take your feet out of your mouth now,
dumbass!!!!

I was making a comment about the entire discussion not anything
directly related to you!!!!