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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
teachrmama wrote:
"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? If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is based on a flawed "standard" anyhow... Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to something similar, the same goes for him. May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying 'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child will be. Banty |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
Banty wrote:
teachrmama wrote: "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? If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is based on a flawed "standard" anyhow... Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to something similar, the same goes for him. May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying 'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child will be. Banty Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods. Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding and (an appropriate degree of) respect. -- Sarah Gray |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
On Nov 15, 8:56 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
Banty wrote: teachrmama wrote: "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? If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is based on a flawed "standard" anyhow... Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to something similar, the same goes for him. May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying 'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child will be. Banty Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods. Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding and (an appropriate degree of) respect. -- Sarah Gray- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
wrote in message ... On Nov 15, 8:56 pm, Sarah Gray wrote: snip Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods. Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding and (an appropriate degree of) respect. -- Sarah Gray- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. Geesh, Leda, she said she went to the dollar show. And not very often. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. She said that, now that the dad has moved out of state, he does not have the daughter half the time, and she is going to have to pay for child care. She would like the dad to contribute for the child's needs, because that will help her pay for thye now-necessary child care. I though you were of the opinion that fathers should provide for their children? Did you change your mind? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 33.102... wrote in Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show. At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had been.... I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father. Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions. For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding responsibilities. As much as I think (actually know) the system is stacked against NCPs, usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal, because the system is not designed to really do any good at all. Not for NCPs, CPs, or children. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 33.102... wrote in Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show. At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had been.... I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father. Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions. For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding responsibilities. As much as I think (actually know) the system is stacked against NCPs, usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal, because the system is not designed to really do any good at all. Not for NCPs, CPs, or children. I realize this is an anecdote, but I managed a facility with over 125 hourly union employees and no one ever asked me to lay them off. The issue was always how they could move to a different job classification to avoid a lay off. An employee who didn't want to work faked an occupational injury. Real employer lay-offs are done on a seniority basis and by job qualifications under union contract and/or workplace pre-defined rules. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message news "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 33.102... wrote in Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show. At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had been.... I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father. Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions. For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding responsibilities. As much as I think (actually know) the system is stacked against NCPs, usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal, because the system is not designed to really do any good at all. Not for NCPs, CPs, or children. I realize this is an anecdote, but I managed a facility with over 125 hourly union employees and no one ever asked me to lay them off. The issue was always how they could move to a different job classification to avoid a lay off. An employee who didn't want to work faked an occupational injury. Real employer lay-offs are done on a seniority basis and by job qualifications under union contract and/or workplace pre-defined rules. I know that, Bob. But, from what Sarah has told us, it seems that her ex has been avoiding the whole child support issue. It is too bad he moved so far away from his child. But I can definitely see where his moving, and her losing the time he cared for her and now needing child care would have put a severe crimp in an already month-to-month budget. And the system, as much as it brags that it makes sure these children are cared for, can do absolutely nothing to help. That's what makes the whole thing so terrible. The unfairness is not even vaguely balanced by any "good deeds" that might not be accomplished without the system. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
: "Sarah Gray" wrote in message . 33.102... wrote in Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help support" your daughter. I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex, you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for suport. I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show. At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had been.... I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father. Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions. He was "laid off" a week after he threatened to quit his job to come up here and "keep dragging me in to court" with the intention of *me* losing *my* job over it. He claims he moved down there because jobs are plentiful, but he has been out of work for nearly a month? I don't buy that. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt? | [email protected] | Child Support | 562 | November 21st 07 07:02 PM |
how to collect more child support | fathersrights | Child Support | 4 | September 6th 07 05:30 AM |
Maybe they can collect off his life insurance, we've seen that expressedbefore | John Meyer | Child Support | 1 | April 7th 07 09:03 PM |
how to collect more support | fathersrights | Child Support | 0 | February 1st 07 07:34 PM |
HOW TO COLLECT MORE SUPPORT | dadslawyer | Child Support | 0 | August 21st 06 03:40 PM |