A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NO Parental responsibilty but must pay



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 28th 07, 03:04 PM posted to alt.child-support
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay

How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their
child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and,
refused the father Parental responsibility, demand that he has to pay
the CSA? Surely, the message from the mother is "**** off, I dont want
you to have anything to do with our baby." This being so, why does
the law and media treat thousands of fathers like us as deadbeats
etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable
support that we can afford.

  #2  
Old March 28th 07, 03:23 PM posted to alt.child-support
Dusty Steenbock
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


wrote in message
ups.com...
How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their
child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and,
refused the father Parental responsibility, demand that he has to pay
the CSA? Surely, the message from the mother is "**** off, I dont want
you to have anything to do with our baby." This being so, why does
the law and media treat thousands of fathers like us as deadbeats
etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable
support that we can afford.


Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you
have Is to pay...




  #3  
Old March 28th 07, 05:12 PM posted to alt.child-support
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you
have Is to pay...



And pay what they say!

Welcome to the suckers club of America!


  #4  
Old March 28th 07, 05:57 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right

you
have Is to pay...



And pay what they say!


With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




  #5  
Old March 28th 07, 09:41 PM posted to alt.child-support
Rod[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay

I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l

  #6  
Old March 29th 07, 12:45 AM posted to alt.child-support
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:57:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right

you
have Is to pay...



And pay what they say!


With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to
pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could
withdraw with appropriate receipts? I see something like this
accomplishing a few things:

A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute,
B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually
spent for the child, and
C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive
the reimbursement.
D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.

What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both
reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next
possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would
need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course.

If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be
considered. Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent
who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing
parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are
calculated.

Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated
upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for
their child.



Beverly
  #7  
Old March 29th 07, 01:23 AM posted to alt.child-support
John Meyer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 302
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay

Rod wrote:
I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l



That's why I recommend you count your sperm each and every night. . .
you never know when one will come back and bite you in the ass.
  #8  
Old March 29th 07, 05:10 PM posted to alt.child-support
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


"Beverly" wrote in

D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.


I would be in favor of such a system, but the notion of the parents paying a
child is silly unless they give the money for college. My parents could not
afford to send us to college, we had to fund that on our own, nothing wrong
with that either.


  #9  
Old March 30th 07, 04:56 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:57:44 -0700, "Chris" wrote:


"DB" wrote in message
.net...

"Dusty Steenbock" wrote in

Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right

you
have Is to pay...


And pay what they say!


With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child.
Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to
"child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal.


Welcome to the suckers club of America!




What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to
pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could
withdraw with appropriate receipts?


I would say it's just another unnecessary government control. But if any
parent chooses to hire the government people to manage their private budget,
more power to them.

What would you say to a "system" where each parent is DIRECTLY responsible
for the care of their children?

I see something like this
accomplishing a few things:

A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute,
B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually
spent for the child, and


Uhuh. The woman takes her boyfriend and three other friends out to dinner.
She then claims it was her children that dined with her. So much for your
paper trail.

C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive
the reimbursement.


As well as spending money on the boyfriend. (see above)

D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of
majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage
in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child.


How about the parents keep the money in their OWN pockets and spend it
if/when/how they deem fit? Or are the government people better managers of
and more entitled to the parents' private budgets than are the parents?


What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both
reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next
possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would
need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course.


Yup. And should not such "guidelines" be determined by each parent?


If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be
considered.


Isn't that the default in most parental situations? Neither parent
contributes to a government "child support" fund, and neither parent gets
reimbursed for any receipts. Been working since the beginning of time; why
change it now?

Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent
who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing
parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are
calculated.


Why have a middleman? I would presume the service would not be free, thus
LESS money "for the children".


Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated
upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for
their child.


The ONLY way to ensure such is to provide yourself. Nevertheless, who pays
for this service?




Beverly



  #10  
Old March 30th 07, 05:10 AM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default NO Parental responsibilty but must pay


"Rod" wrote in message
...
I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned
eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later
my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living
increase!l


Indeed! That's their game. Ever notice that the alloted amount for the first
(oldest) child is significantly LESS than any subsequent children? Ya think
that's by accident? I could never figure out why it costs less to "support"
an older child. Would somebody explain this to me?

Wouldn't the difference between how much you paid (per court order) and how
much it gets reduced upon termination be an overpayment subject to
reimbursement? After all, if you no longer have to pay "support" for a
child, and the total payment gets reduced by seven bucks, it follows that
seven bucks is all it cost to "support" that particular child.




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parental-Control PCOTNet Kids Health 0 December 3rd 06 09:57 AM
Parental Rights John carlsson Child Support 1 June 23rd 05 05:36 AM
Parental rights John carlsson Single Parents 0 June 20th 05 08:15 PM
From the FBI - Parental Kidnappings Dusty Child Support 8 May 8th 05 12:57 AM
No Parental Rights for Bio-Mom Bob Whiteside Child Support 12 May 13th 04 02:21 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.