"Child Support" money?

Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is not
being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like I
mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this
time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point"
and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss the
point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's needs."),
why not question why she is receiving so little. Wouldn't you agree
that $75/month is very little if her situation is the norm (70%
parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the doubt, and let her
feel she can talk..

You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to
certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more
friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's
post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic
questions. She left out what I would consider very important details.
Details that I thought could have supported her point of view very
well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of one-sidedness
seemed way to convenient for me.

Tracy wrote:
Let me also comment this way - let's say we have another CP who is not
being mean. She would like to contribute to this group. Like I
mentioned to Bob, this is not a CP/mother-friendly group at this
time. Instead of making statements that she has "missed the point"
and is expecting CS to cover 100% of the cost ("You seem to miss the
point that CS is not supposed to cover 100% of the child's needs."),
why not question why she is receiving so little. Wouldn't you agree
that $75/month is very little if her situation is the norm (70%
parenting-time)? Give Mary the benefit of the doubt, and let her
feel she can talk..

You're point is well taken about the friendliness of the group to
certain aspects of the issue. And, I agree that we should be more
friendly to open up better discussion, etc. In this case, the OP's
post was so overwhelmingly one-sided that I had to ask some basic
questions. She left out what I would consider very important details.
Details that I thought could have supported her point of view very
well, depending on what the thruth is. The degree of one-sidedness
seemed way to convenient for me.

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

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.

Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing
the victim again.


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

Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is
funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children,
would run as fast as they could.



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

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:24:59 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

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.

Please.. you make choices about what happens in your life. Playing
the victim again.


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

Yeah, im sure you men would gladly change places with CP's. That is
funny. I bet that most men,if the CP handed them their children,
would run as fast as they could.



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

I think she ran through the meds for the month, and it is only the 19th

"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message
...
Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
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..

I think she ran through the meds for the month, and it is only the 19th

"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message
...
Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
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..

My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up
formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use
the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the
system for my current problems.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
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..

My name is Melvin Gamble. I really have nothing better to do with my
time than feel sorry for myself . I really screwed things up
formyself , but its far easier to blame someone else. You know use
the mother as the scapegoat for all my bad choices and blame the
system for my current problems.


On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 09:31:07 GMT, Melvin Gamble
wrote:

Fighting for Air would see a flying pig and holler "deadbeat"....she's
back into her I-lost-track-of-the-logic-so-I'll-just-toss-random-insults
mode.

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

ASSuming. why am I not surprised.

"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
...
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..

Be my guest..... .........hell, you can make that a song LOL

"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message
...
Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script -
mind if I give it a try, Paul?

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is
dumber.
LMAO

"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
...
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!!!!

Be my guest..... .........hell, you can make that a song LOL

"Melvin Gamble" wrote in message
...
Hey, "dumb and dumber"...sounds like a good idea for a movie script -
mind if I give it a try, Paul?

Mel Gamble

Paul Fritz wrote:

snicker what a hoot......two tree stumps battling about who is
dumber.
LMAO

"stealing for mommies" wrote in message
...
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!!!!