"Child Support" money?

The farce in all of this, Gini, is that it isn't the "lifestyle" that's
mandated - it's "making it possible that the custodial parent might
provide the lifestyle but won't be required to" that's mandated. In
other words, as far as the kids are concerned....nothing is mandated, so
the whole "maintain the standard of living...blah, blah, blah" argument
the state pretends to use falls apart totally in the bright light of
day.

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===

Mrs Indyguy
====
====

The farce in all of this, Gini, is that it isn't the "lifestyle" that's
mandated - it's "making it possible that the custodial parent might
provide the lifestyle but won't be required to" that's mandated. In
other words, as far as the kids are concerned....nothing is mandated, so
the whole "maintain the standard of living...blah, blah, blah" argument
the state pretends to use falls apart totally in the bright light of
day.

Mel Gamble

Gini52 wrote:

In article , Indyguy1 says...

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?
====
Your view is different than mine on this. We've been here before. You believe
support should be ordered commensurate with SOL (theoretical--as it is never
enforced elsewhere). Until the state comes to *your* home (I know yours is
intact as mine is :-) and requires you to spend a defined percentage of your
income on your children, it has no right do it to divorced/never married
dads/NCPs.
====

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?
====
Yes. Children in "broken" families should have no more rights to SOL than kids
in intact homes. The government should not be in the business of mandating
lifestyle. Period. If it is--it *must* mandate *all* parents to fund the
lifestyle and be willing to enforce it. To mandate lifestyle *only* on NCPs (not
CPs and not intact families) is simply a violation of equal protection. To
presume a SOL on kids from broken homes but not kids from intact homes is a
violation of equal protection as well.
===

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?
===
Again, it is a violation of equal protection to mandate a lifestyle be funded by
an NCP, but not a CP and not for kids in intact homes. As in intact families,
financial decisions should be made by the parents without government intrusion.
===

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.
===
As in intact families, lifestyle is not a matter to be enforced by the state.
The state's interest is to make certain kids have basic needs met.
==

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.
===
Nitpicking is an individual matter. It is better than the consequences of state
mandated lifestyle CS for which it refuses to account.
===

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.
===
I'm sure there would be greater compliance if the state were as interested in
whether the child is benefiting from the money as it is from extracting it from
NCPs.
===
===

Mrs Indyguy
====
====

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered.

We had a court order that each of us maintain our pre-divorce life insurance
policies - I still have mine in force, he let his default.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 21:32:16 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote:


The $4,755 is the amount CP's claim has been ordered and this number is from
1999 orders that could have been modified upward twice since the Census data
was collected.

Or modified downward.


For perspective it needs to be stated this average CS amount
includes teenage mothers aged 15 and up who have had children with very low
income teenage boys, as well as adult children over the age of majority for
CS but under age 21.

WHo probably make up a small portion of the reported numbers. If I
remember the majority of support was given to those 21 and up.


The $4,755 does not include healthcare insurance and
reimbursements, life insurance, daycare, etc. that are add-ons to the basic
CS order.

It very well may. My state includes daycare expenses in the support
order already added in. Life insurance? Reimbursements? Those are
judgements that are seperate from the CS order anyway. I dont know
one person who got life insurance ordered.

We had a court order that each of us maintain our pre-divorce life insurance
policies - I still have mine in force, he let his default.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Moon Shyne wrote:
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
remark.

That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.

Oh? "I" has some other meaning?


Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that child support
money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is issued), you chose, instead,
to launch an attack on some fictitious selfishness. You know nothing about me,
about my children, nor about how much I do for my children in contrast to how
much I do (or don't, as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark
was way off base.

"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Moon Shyne wrote:
The dollar spent on the child will come with a receipt.

So I can't buy anything for my children at a street fair, or some
other place where they don't issue receipts? Can't buy ice cream
from the ice cream truck because they don't issue receipts?

Apparently not. If you are so selfish with your own money that you
can't spring for an ice cream, this will be a problem, won't it?

Considering that the CS I currently receive is less than half the
actual expenses for the children, you would be way off base in your
remark.

That's not what you said. You're avoiding the point. Your statement
gave no indication that you were talking only about you, specifically.

Oh? "I" has some other meaning?


Can you address the response to your own point, or not?

The response to my point not only missed my point (the idea that child support
money can be used for nothing unless a receipt is issued), you chose, instead,
to launch an attack on some fictitious selfishness. You know nothing about me,
about my children, nor about how much I do for my children in contrast to how
much I do (or don't, as is generally the case) do for myself, and your remark
was way off base.

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...
....
You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much
I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some
elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day
of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while
I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

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) 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. 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..

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, 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. 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

"The Beast" wrote in message
.com...
....
You know...just because a legislative body makes a law, any law, does not
make it right!
People from the left in this country have been telling us for years that
morality cannot be legislated upon. Well, friend, that is exactly what CS
legislation is! Laws governing what I or someone else think is right. With
that said, I don't have a problem supporting my children. What I have a
problem with is some government equation telling me how much it costs to
rise MY children. YOU CANNOT tell me how to raise my children or how much
I
SHOULD spend on them. IOW's NO ONE SHOULD HAVE MORAL AUTHORITY OVER ME
BESIDES MY CREATOR!!! Not you, not a court, and especially not some
elected
"official" that is sucking up PAC money like a cheap whore on the docks on
payday.
However, I would be interested in a system that allowed a NCP to pay a CP
without the blood-stained hands of the court involved. A contract, if you
will, between two consenting adults(novel concept, huh?). And in this day
of
technology this would be very easy. Hell, I can pay my phone bill while
I'm
driving down the road @ 70mph, why cant I pay my ex electronically and cut
out the middle man(govco)?

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) 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. 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..

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, 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. 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

"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.


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

"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.


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