Is this proper?

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:47:50 -0800, "Tracy"
wrote:

"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Nov 2005 22:25:24 -0800, wrote:

There are some who believe the following scenario would be
innappropriate use of child support:

(I'm using random numbers just to illustrate a point, but will base CS
on the calculations in my state)

CP gets net paycheck of $500 on the 7th, the 14th, the 21st, and the
28th... a total of $2000 during the month.

NCP makes the same amount in a month, but also has to pay an
additional $100 toward medical insurance for the family plan at work.
NCP must send a CS in the amount of $220 to the CP. NCP's total
contribution is $320. NCP's employer sends entire amount to arrive
just before the 1st.

CP is supposed to be responsible to support the child in addition to
what the NCP sends in the amount of $320.

CP spends $135 on the child from each paycheck, but receives the CS
check on the 30th and promptly writes a check for the mortgage since
this deposit brings the balance of the account sufficient to write the
mortgage check.

Was CS spent on the mortgage? Some would see it that way. Yet, a
total of $540 was spent of the child during the month and CP was only
responsible for $320; hence, wasn't the additional $220 used toward
the child?

Personally, I wouldn't count on CS to pay my mortgage, but there are
people out there who will budget the last check of any sort to arrive
to be used toward that 1st of the month payment.

Tracking the expenses via software in the example above will only
enlighten those who feel that the CS check is being used on a mortgage
payment.

I could hug you right now.

All the years I've spent in this news group and have seen countless times of
people claiming child support was spent on items not for the child, and then
you come up with the above example. I'm sure there will be some who will
change the figures, but in truth if someone is not presented with facts then
they'll draw any conclusion they wish. Then there are those who will debate
what is being spent on the child and if it should be spent in the areas
provided. Examples are music lessons, riding lessons, and sports. Should
the new dresser be considered a costs for the child or the parent? Should a
mattress used by a child be considered a cost for the child? (those are
hypothetical questions)


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

Tracy wrote:
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:47:50 -0800, "Tracy"
wrote:

"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Nov 2005 22:25:24 -0800, wrote:

There are some who believe the following scenario would be
innappropriate use of child support:

(I'm using random numbers just to illustrate a point, but will base CS
on the calculations in my state)

CP gets net paycheck of $500 on the 7th, the 14th, the 21st, and the
28th... a total of $2000 during the month.

NCP makes the same amount in a month, but also has to pay an
additional $100 toward medical insurance for the family plan at work.
NCP must send a CS in the amount of $220 to the CP. NCP's total
contribution is $320. NCP's employer sends entire amount to arrive
just before the 1st.

CP is supposed to be responsible to support the child in addition to
what the NCP sends in the amount of $320.

CP spends $135 on the child from each paycheck, but receives the CS
check on the 30th and promptly writes a check for the mortgage since
this deposit brings the balance of the account sufficient to write the
mortgage check.

Was CS spent on the mortgage? Some would see it that way. Yet, a
total of $540 was spent of the child during the month and CP was only
responsible for $320; hence, wasn't the additional $220 used toward
the child?

Personally, I wouldn't count on CS to pay my mortgage, but there are
people out there who will budget the last check of any sort to arrive
to be used toward that 1st of the month payment.

Tracking the expenses via software in the example above will only
enlighten those who feel that the CS check is being used on a mortgage
payment.

I could hug you right now.

All the years I've spent in this news group and have seen countless times of
people claiming child support was spent on items not for the child, and then
you come up with the above example. I'm sure there will be some who will
change the figures, but in truth if someone is not presented with facts then
they'll draw any conclusion they wish. Then there are those who will debate
what is being spent on the child and if it should be spent in the areas
provided. Examples are music lessons, riding lessons, and sports. Should
the new dresser be considered a costs for the child or the parent? Should a
mattress used by a child be considered a cost for the child? (those are
hypothetical questions)


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

The actually problem arises if, and only if, an inappropriate award is
made. It is that simple. The countless times of people stating that the
money is not spent on the child is most likely the product of
inappropriate awards. I would like to see what accountability laws
would do to the compliance rate for child support payors.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Tracy wrote:
..................................
All the years I've spent in this news group and have seen countless times
of
people claiming child support was spent on items not for the child, and
then
you come up with the above example. I'm sure there will be some who will
change the figures, but in truth if someone is not presented with facts
then
they'll draw any conclusion they wish. Then there are those who will
debate
what is being spent on the child and if it should be spent in the areas
provided. Examples are music lessons, riding lessons, and sports.
Should
the new dresser be considered a costs for the child or the parent?
Should a
mattress used by a child be considered a cost for the child? (those are
hypothetical questions)


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

The actually problem arises if, and only if, an inappropriate award is
made. It is that simple. The countless times of people stating that the
money is not spent on the child is most likely the product of
inappropriate awards. I would like to see what accountability laws
would do to the compliance rate for child support payors.
===========
Agreed. It has always been my contention that support awards *that go beyond
the
actual costs of raising kids,* should be accounted for by the CP. If the
government is going to
legislate lifestyle (which is unconstitutional anyway), it should be
legislated for CPs as well as NCPs.
And as far as equal protection, it must be legislated for kids in intact
families as well.
If the government is going to declare that it is in the child's best
interest to be supported according to
percentage of income, Bill Gates should be required to account for how much
he spends on his kids, too.
==========

On 7 Nov 2005 18:05:04 -0800, wrote:


Tracy wrote:
"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:47:50 -0800, "Tracy"
wrote:

"Beverly" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Nov 2005 22:25:24 -0800, wrote:

There are some who believe the following scenario would be
innappropriate use of child support:

(I'm using random numbers just to illustrate a point, but will base CS
on the calculations in my state)

CP gets net paycheck of $500 on the 7th, the 14th, the 21st, and the
28th... a total of $2000 during the month.

NCP makes the same amount in a month, but also has to pay an
additional $100 toward medical insurance for the family plan at work.
NCP must send a CS in the amount of $220 to the CP. NCP's total
contribution is $320. NCP's employer sends entire amount to arrive
just before the 1st.

CP is supposed to be responsible to support the child in addition to
what the NCP sends in the amount of $320.

CP spends $135 on the child from each paycheck, but receives the CS
check on the 30th and promptly writes a check for the mortgage since
this deposit brings the balance of the account sufficient to write the
mortgage check.

Was CS spent on the mortgage? Some would see it that way. Yet, a
total of $540 was spent of the child during the month and CP was only
responsible for $320; hence, wasn't the additional $220 used toward
the child?

Personally, I wouldn't count on CS to pay my mortgage, but there are
people out there who will budget the last check of any sort to arrive
to be used toward that 1st of the month payment.

Tracking the expenses via software in the example above will only
enlighten those who feel that the CS check is being used on a mortgage
payment.

I could hug you right now.

All the years I've spent in this news group and have seen countless times of
people claiming child support was spent on items not for the child, and then
you come up with the above example. I'm sure there will be some who will
change the figures, but in truth if someone is not presented with facts then
they'll draw any conclusion they wish. Then there are those who will debate
what is being spent on the child and if it should be spent in the areas
provided. Examples are music lessons, riding lessons, and sports. Should
the new dresser be considered a costs for the child or the parent? Should a
mattress used by a child be considered a cost for the child? (those are
hypothetical questions)


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

The actually problem arises if, and only if, an inappropriate award is
made. It is that simple. The countless times of people stating that the
money is not spent on the child is most likely the product of
inappropriate awards. I would like to see what accountability laws
would do to the compliance rate for child support payors.

I disagree that "The actually problem arises if, and only if, an
inappropriate award is made." But I think accountability laws would
be enlightening. I just don't think they will change anything for the
majority.

The reason I feel this way is because the majority of NCP's who don't
comply either can't afford to or don't feel they should have to.
Those who pay NOTHING won't necessarily care what is actually spent on
the child... especially if they prefer to spend their support on the
child directly (which means enforced parenting time). Those who send
something, but not the full amount, are oftentimes in the "can't
afford to" category and no amount of "this is what it actually costs"
data will change that.

Then there are the arguments over the expenses to be considered valid.
For example, my ex lives in an affluent community (although he is
quite out of place given his income) where we both grew up. Public
schools there offer a free education which is liberal... meaning
things like art, music, and after-school sports are funded by tax
dollars. In the community in which I live, it is impossible to choose
classes for the year at the high school level (which begins in 8th
grade here) without incurring a fee. My children have chosen music
and are in the band, a class that REQUIRES an extracurricular
component. If we didn't have to pay for music, we'd have had to pay
for something else; hence, I would include band fees as part of the
children's expenses to be considered toward child support obligations.
I would NOT, however, include fees paid for my 16 year-old son to be
part of a youth symphony for which he had to audition and be accepted.
This is done A) for his enjoyment and B) in an effort to secure a
music scholarship to a college (his idea, not mine)... both of which
are discretionary. However, I can assure you that payment of any fees
associated with school would be suspect to my ex. It is out of his
range of experience.

Then again, so are many of the children's expenses out of my ex's
range of experience. I bought the children prepaid cell phones, for
instance, because many of their friends do not have telephones of any
kind. This would seem odd to my ex, whom I told you lives in an
affluent community. But I consider ensuring that my children can
reach me or call for help responsible parenting. If there is a better
alternative (besides keeping the children prisoners in their own
home), I'd be willing to consider it. But until the plausible
alternative is shown to me, I have to consider these prepaid phones a
valid expense. They use the home phone for chatting and, although
they each have a cell phone in their possession, they know not to use
it unless necessary and still argue over phone time at home.

I do not consider part of my mortgage a part of child expenses, but
never considered rent part of it either. Sure, I could have rented a
smaller place if I didn't need rooms for the kids, but oftentimes NCPs
ALSO need to rent sufficient space to allow the children to visit
overnight comfortably. It doesn't matter if a room is empty 5 nights
a week... it is impossible to rent an extra room only when needed.
Fortunately for my ex, his "extra rooms" are inhabited by his stepsons
and our children just bunk in with them when they visit, but that does
not make his need to provide the space any less than mine.

Unfortunately, the "one size fits all" calculations for child support
don't work so well. There are so many factors to consider that each
case really needs a financial professional to determine a "specific
fit" when it comes to child support and it needs to be re-adjusted
regularly. Incomes change, needs change. And it is because child
support is not calculated on a case-by case basis and is not
re-adjusted regularly that ALL child support orders are either
innappropriate from the git go or become innappropriate quite quickly.
This can be read both ways... either too low or too high.

"Tracy" wrote in
:
I could hug you right now.

All the years I've spent in this news group and have seen countless
times of people claiming child support was spent on items not for the
child, and then you come up with the above example. I'm sure there
will be some who will change the figures, but in truth if someone is
not presented with facts then they'll draw any conclusion they wish.
Then there are those who will debate what is being spent on the child
and if it should be spent in the areas provided. Examples are music
lessons, riding lessons, and sports. Should the new dresser be
considered a costs for the child or the parent? Should a mattress
used by a child be considered a cost for the child? (those are
hypothetical questions)
Thanks,
Tracy

Tracy,


You are a fair person, and I have read you posts for years.

That is an okay example of how it appears support money is spent one
way, and not on the child, I'll give it that...

.... but, that's all I'll give it. If you were to look at this problem
from other sides, you will see it is not a good example of the issues
surrounding child support.

In her example Beverly states:

CP spends $135 on the child from each paycheck

This amount based on the combination of both parent's support
contributions

$320 x 2 = $640, minus $100 to medical = $540, divided by 4 weeks =
$135.

Lets just say it is $135 per week (not per paycheck).

Bev is assuming that all $135 is spent each week. That is the
theoritical limit based on each parent contributing to the monthly child
support amount. So, my question is, where does the extra money go when
the limit is not reached. Do you think the CP gives a refund to the NCP
("Hey, sorry, I didn't spend all the money this month, here is a cheque
for $23.67"). No... it just goes into the CP's pockets.

It gets worse. As the amount the NCP pays (which is about $400 - $500
per child in Canada), that theoritcal limit can go so high you could not
even being to spend that kind of money on a child (well, I guess you
could if they want everything and anything). Using $400 per month from
the NCP, under Bev's example, a typical monthly expenditures would have
to be $800 per month ($400 x2). WOW!

Interestingly, as the amount increases, the CP pockets are lined even
more.

Say the CP still spends $135 per week (total $540) but has the $800 in
combined support as noted above. Now ther NCP is paying $400 out of $540
and the CP only $140. Technically, the CP has a windfall of $260 per
month. Do not spend the whole $135, and the NCP is paying the entire
show. Now, even at $320 each in support, and $135 per week in
expenditures, what was the money spent on? Bev is assuming the CP spends
the money on the child. This is the first issue with CS. What the heck
is the money being spent on and is money going to other things other
than the children. So, if the NCP got a nice printout showing money
spent on books, school supplies, toys, a DVD, clothes and making
allowances for food and other things... hey, I can cut some slack here.
But, the NCP does not have any accounting for the money. So, what is a
NCP to do when they see their child in clothes that are tattered and
worn out, or not see the clothes at all, improper outdoor clothing,
boots that do not fit, the children missing lessons, and so on, and the
CP crying "I'm broke. I'm so poor. I can't afford thnigs for the
children".

If the NCP had a printout they could at least go... "Oh, I see, you
spent some money on little Bobby here and here and you did not have
enough for lessons". I suspect most NCP's go.. "Hey, wait a second... I
pay a lot for support... where are the kids clothes... why aren't they
in lessons we agreed upon... and where are the rain boots... and why do
they not have a good proper lunch? Can you expain this to me!?!?" Most
will get a not so nice reply "It's none of your business".

It gets even worse. Most NCP's will not been able to use any co
purchased (through support). That includes, but not limited to;
favoutrite stuffed animals, books, DVD's, clothes, etc, since they are
not allowed to leave the CP's house. Which leads me to... bum bum ba!
Day-to-day expenses to the NCP. There was no day-to-day cost for the NCP
in Bev's example. Does the child not eat when with the NCP. Perhaps the
NCP will purchase something for the child... a story book... maybe pack
a lunch or two... a school supply. As time spent with the NCP increases,
costs for the CP go down, but the CP stiil gets her $135 per week to
spend on the child. So more unaccounted money to the CP. But I
digress...


Bev added...

Was CS spent on the mortgage? Some would see it that way. Yet, a total
of $540 was spent of the child during the month and CP was only
responsible for $320; hence, wasn't the additional $220 used toward the
child?

So, Bev, in her perfect example, of tight little numbers and 100% of
money spent on the child... it all looks fine. And really, no support
money was spent paying off someone else's mortage or paying for a
lifestyle. It is simply a matter of money goes in and money comes out
and timing of income(s), support payments, expenses and mortgages. Heck,
while we are at it, lets just state the CP has $2000 in salary, plus
$220 ($320) in support, minus mortgage. The rest is used on the child
and after all the needs of the children are met, on the life(style) for
the CP. Okay... I can sleep easier now.

If only it was that simple.


Finally... Bev concluded with...
Tracking the expenses via software in the example above will only
enlighten those who feel that the CS check is being used on a mortgage
payment.


I want to be enlightened!!! Please give my ex a spreadsheet, and supply
me with the monthly receipts and a printout. I'll cut her slack on some
of the bills, some of the mortgage, food and even captial expenditures
like a bed and a dresser. After that, though, I want a refund for the
overpayment. Fair enough?

H.

Good point. I should redefine inappropriate as an award that is grossly
disproportionate to the actual costs of raising a child. The problem is
that the actual costs of raising a child vary so wildly that there is
that really a way to calculate it without doing an economic study on
the child in question, which is time-consuming.

I agree with Henry. I am totally willing to just assume my daughter
will eat X amount of dollars in food per month. If the X is a
reasonable amount. A bed and dresser, if they were for the child, would
be no problem to me, hey buying something expensive like that may
balance out the fact that I may have paid too much at some point. Say
there is a different account for the child. There is $1000 excess
support in there, the child needs a bed, or would like to have a new
one, whatever. Well, by all means, buy it! Put it on the daddy account!

And if the account gets over a certain balance, say $2500, the money
automatically starts to roll over into an interest-bearing account in
the child's name. College fund, wedding fund, finally turned 21 and
moved out fund, I don't mind overpaying, but I would hate for my
daughter to call me and hit me up for tuition after I overpaid for
years, where did it all go? Who knows.

Hell if a person is going to overpay, then the child should reap the
eventual benefits.

Oh yeah, if the account grows way too fast, NCP might need a downward
modification.

"Henry" wrote in

I want to be enlightened!!! Please give my ex a spreadsheet, and supply
me with the monthly receipts and a printout. I'll cut her slack on some
of the bills, some of the mortgage, food and even captial expenditures
like a bed and a dresser. After that, though, I want a refund for the
overpayment. Fair enough?


Play it the other way, what if your child came to live with you?

You're already paying rent or a mortgage and utilities, so the child doesn't
cost you anything there.
Not much extra to put another plate on the table for Breakfast and Dinner.
Half the time you throw away excess food anyway or just bag it for lunch the
next day, so again the child is no extra burden.

So the real cost of feeding a child is the lunch cost? You already pack your
own lunch, so what does it cost to throw in a piece of Fruit, a sandwich,
desert pack and carton of milk? This is what I ate when my parents packed
my lunch!!!!

Clothes, how many pairs of jeans and shoes can you buy in one month?

How did my immigrant parents ever raise us 3 kids on one blue collar salary?
They sure as hell didn't have a $800 dollar CS check coming in every month
to help them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree that that the costs of raising an individual child vary
considerably. I also agree that calculating those costs for an individual
child would be time-consuming--as well as being extremely expensive and
unlikely to eliminate the arbitrariness that fathers complain about with
state child support guidelines.

Nevertheless, given the political will, it would be possible to greatly
improve on the present system in the U.S. The problem is that the political
will isn't there at present. The fathers who pay this so-called "child
support" under the present system -- as distinct from the mothers who
receive it -- have very little influence over politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats. Divorced and never-married fathers are one of the few
remaining officially designated scapegoats in U.S. society today.

I have been involved in these issues for many years (although in recent
years I have scaled back my involvement). Thus, I have observed the
activities of Robert Williams, whose Denver-based consulting and CS
enforcement company has had a crucial influence on CS activities in the U.S.
I have sat in on the activities of a CS advisory committee in my own state.
As a result, I am well aware that CS guidelines will always be arbitrary.
However, it would be perfectly possible to change their basis to make them
less biased against fathers.

For example, all expenses--including fixed costs such as housing rental
or mortgage expenses--could be pro-rated between BOTH parents, according to
the time the children spend with the "majority" parent and the "minority"
parent. Instead, the prevalent practice is to assign expenses associated
with the children to the custodial parent (nearly always the mother).
Typically, no allowance is made for the father's costs associated with the
time the children are with him. Thus, the father continues to have to pay
the mother for several weeks during the summer, when typically the children
are with him 100 percent of the time. I have heard this issue raised, and
the usual reply is that the mother's housing expenses don't go away when the
children are with the father. However, EXACTLY the same thing is true for
the father. It's just that no one has to pay any attention to the father's
side of the equation.

So-called "child support" COULD be made more rational, even if the
arbitrary element can never be completely removed. This is not done for one
reason, and one reason only. That reason is that making "child support"
more rational would be to the benefit of fathers, and would involve removal
of an unjustified subsidy to mothers.

In addition, scaling back CS in this way would make wife-initiated
divorces (which are the great bulk of family breakups in the U.S. today)
more difficult. So there would be a conflict with a fundamental, but
never-acknowledged, principle of U.S. family law. That principle is that
enlarging women's options is the policy objective that trumps all others,
including the legitimate interests of men and children.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Good point. I should redefine inappropriate as an award that is grossly
disproportionate to the actual costs of raising a child. The problem is
that the actual costs of raising a child vary so wildly that there is
that really a way to calculate it without doing an economic study on
the child in question, which is time-consuming.

wrote in news:1131520363.905872.44500
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

I agree with Henry. I am totally willing to just assume my daughter
will eat X amount of dollars in food per month. If the X is a
reasonable amount. A bed and dresser, if they were for the child,
would
be no problem to me, hey buying something expensive like that may
balance out the fact that I may have paid too much at some point. Say
there is a different account for the child. There is $1000 excess
support in there, the child needs a bed, or would like to have a new
one, whatever. Well, by all means, buy it! Put it on the daddy
account!

And if the account gets over a certain balance, say $2500, the money
automatically starts to roll over into an interest-bearing account in
the child's name. College fund, wedding fund, finally turned 21 and
moved out fund, I don't mind overpaying, but I would hate for my
daughter to call me and hit me up for tuition after I overpaid for
years, where did it all go? Who knows.

Hell if a person is going to overpay, then the child should reap the
eventual benefits.

Oh yeah, if the account grows way too fast, NCP might need a downward
modification.

I have often thought that CS should go into a 3rd party-runned bank
account. Perhaps that would be a better use of the FRO (Ontario's CS
office)... but, anyway. Both parents contribute based on their incomes.
Receipts are turned in, and a cheque (refund) issued. It would be better
if their was a debit card or something. Each parent could only spend up
to a certain limit. Large items get dispursed over many months.

At the end of a time period, or limit, the unused funds are rolled into
the Child's RESP.

But, this will never fly. Why? Becuase in Canada the role of CS is to
equal the SOL of each house. Since the CP does not get the money, this
bank account would, techincally their SOL could be lower and the
politicians will not allow that. Better to give the CP money hand over
fist, mainly from the NCP, than to actually make people work for a
living.

H.