Pay someone for their decision?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Wow, you are one angry person. Back the h**l up.. I was talking
about
"unilateral" decisions...not about all the stuff you have brought
up.

But, Fighting, where do you think the choice to have the child leads?
I
have seen you ranting about men paying money for the children they
helped
create. But I have not seen you even mention the child's need for an
ongoing relationship with the very man you say must be responsible for
the
child. Are you or are you not in favor of 50/50 shared custody? Do
you
or
do you not think that children should have equal access to both
parents?

Thats because that is what this discussion was started with, you guys
complaining that women have unilaterial choice about a child being born
and
that they are doing so for monetary reasons. You all havent said
anything
about visitation either, until now.

Actually, women absolutely have a unilateral choice of whether or not a
conceived child will be carried to term. The real issue is not whether or
not the child should be born. It is about who should be held responsible
if
the child is carried to term. Women can say "I don't want to be a mom
yet,
and abort the child. Or give it up for adoption without consulting the
father. Men have no choice but to accept the woman's choice. Even if
there
was an agreement that neither wanted children before the conception took
place.

But humor me here. A child that was not planned is carried to term and
birthed. This child has needs. It needs to be supported financially,
yes.
But it also needs the input of BOTH parents in its little life. Do you
believe that both parents should have equal responsibility for and access
to
the child? Do you believe that the child should have equal access to both
parents? Would having the child live 50% of the time with each parent
negate, in your opinion, the need for money in the form of "child support"
to change hands? How would *you* set up the perfect system, Fighting for
KIds?





I am curious about the 50% theory. Has any legislation ever been introduced
to make joint custody mandatory? Of course there would be exceptions such
as abuse, etc.

I believe this would be better for the children, and maybe teach the parents
something in the process. Sort of like re-training society, and family
values.

If young people could see examples of joint responsibility of adult parents
and them being held jointly accountable for their actions together, it could
actually sway things over the years to help families become a little more
functional.

Steve

"Gini" wrote in message
...

The other side to all this is the fact that CSE only collected, I
beleive
50% of all child support that was ordered. Obviously the NCP isnt
meeting
60% of the childs needs as someone suggested.
==
I have no idea what you are talking about here. You must have no knowledge
of income shares CS models.

All states dont use this model you speak of.


We paid 1200. support a month
for two kids (both are grown. One now lives with us--has for about 5/6
years
and is in college).
Under the income shares model, the state claimed the kids had a "support
need" of over 2000. a month and
my husband was responsible for over 60% of that with the CP having a
support
share of the remaining 30+percent (however, that is theoretical as she
only
had to keep the kids from starving and freezing
and there was no one to monitor where that 1200 went or her "pretend"
share).

I pay a higher percentage of support than the NCP, but I really dont
complain about it. Im thankful if I EVER get a support payment from the
NCP.

She also got the tax exemptions
except for a few years that we took one for the child we had/have in our
custody. She has never paid us a dime support for him, BTW. Now, as I
said--you do the math. Under this CS arrangement, her net income was 48k
per
year and ours was under 27k.

In our state, she would be responsible for the greatest percentage of
support because she made more.

The NCP/father had "primary financial
responsibility" with the greater percent share of support required.
Because
men typically earn more money, they are typically assessed more than 50%
of
the support need. This puts the "primary financial responsibility" on
them.
I believe what is happening here is that most of us in this group are
college educated with middle class incomes. We are hit hardest by
lifestyle
child support awards which are established
under the ridiculous notion that in spite of divorce, kids should have the
lifestyle they would have had should the divorce not occurred (aside from
the fact that, had there not been a divorce, the state mandates *no*
lifestyle for kids based on income).
This ignores the reality that two homes must be supported rather than one
which often leaves the NCP with very little to live on. This is reality.
I'm
guessing (and this is the *only* way your comments of inadequate CS can be
supported), is that you are dealing with lower income families who could
barely subsist on their pre-divorce income let alone post divorce.

I have dealt with both types of families and I see what the average amount
of support ordered is in most cases and what most CP's actually get. As Ive
said in other posts, the majority of CP's dont get support orders like you
suggest.

In these
cases, the menial support would do little to pull these kids out of
poverty/near poverty existence anyway. You know, there are several CP
mothers here (including myself, at one time), who rather than sitting
around
whining about how little money we could drag out of the ex, or what
vicitms
we were, went back to college to increase our own earnings capacity.

There are a lot of CP's who are doing such, but most that are poor dont have
enough education, good jobs, or support systems that would enable them to go
to school and increase their earning capacity

There
are strong women and there are weak women. Some women cry victim and spend
years trying to squeeze a dime out of a true deadbeat. Strong women get
off
their asses and do what it takes to meet their responsibilities, including
going back to school.

Some do both, im college educated, support my children and expect my ex to
support his children. I spend my time calling the CSE office, writing to my
congressman or woman to get things accomplished. I will never just give up
and let my ex not support his children. If it means him paying his arrears
until he is dead then thats what will happen. If thats selfish and being a
victim well then so be it. He helped make these two children, the least he
could do is support them a little.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

And for what reasons would 50/50 custody not be an option? Would the
mother
deciding she wanted to move the children to another state be a reason to
have 50/50 custody dropped? Would the mother be able to reject 50/50 just
because she didn't like the idea? (I'm trying to what guidelines you
would
use to make 50/50 not an option)
See here you are again concentrating on only the mother, when a father can
do these things too. What about a father who moves to another state away
from the child, how about a father who didnt want 50/50 custody because he
didnt like the idea? What about NCP's that dont want to have anything to do
with their children? What about families where there is a disabled child?
What if one parent is disabled and unable to meet the 50% requirement
because of transportation,medical needs? What about cases in which there is
abuse? What about cases where the child was a result of a rape? What about
cases in which the parents schedules make it impossible for 50/50 to
occur( in my opinion they should change them to make it work, but we both
know that some people can be stubborn)? What about children who may be
emotionally unstable?

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

I've asked you several times to cite your sources. Telling you to look at
CS guidelines for each state sends you to a specific set of data. I have
no
idea what resources you used for the data you used.


If you are really interested, why don't you do a search they are readily
accessible.

Ive asked for proof of your "claims" and have yet to see something. Again,
if you are really interested then search for them, they arent hard to find.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I agree with you on that. I am not pro abortion either. But I really
don't
think that the inability to afford abortion is the reason that most women
keep children that, before conception, they adamantly said they didn't
want.

I have a very good friend who got pregnant and said before conception that
she didnt want any children. When she got pregnant, the first thing out of
her mouth wasnt "im going to have this child beacuse I want money from the
father" but rather she couldnt emotionally bring herself to the point of
killing a child. For her abortion wasnt even a choice because of her
upbringing. Thats why I dont agree with what you guys are saying here, most
women who get pregnant after contraception fails dont go hunting for the
father and decide to have a child for monetary gain. That is the last thing
on their minds.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a now-14-1/2 year
old
daughter. The mother had never informed him of the fact. They only had a
1
night stand. Once the paternity results came back, he was charged 2 years
back support. (Than goodness the law protected him from having to pay back
to the child's birth!)

He shouldnt have to pay back support in my opinon. If she didnt bring to
his attention all this time that he had a child then she shouldnt get
support for that time.

He is not a deadbeat. Every payment due has been
paid since the order was issued. But, because he has arrearages, he is
considered to be one of those that is not up-to-date on his support. How
many NCPs have fallen on hard times and find themselves on the bad list
for
a couple of partial payments?

I dont think that your husband is a deadbeat, and im sure most people
(except a few sickos
's) would lean the other way. I dont agree with the system right now in
many ways, ive said it before there are some good NCP's that dont deserve
the labels they get. However, a few months or partial payments is one
thing, when a NCP falls $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 behind on payments, jump
from job to job to avoid paying, hide assets, play games they truely are a
deadbeat.

And, BTW, where did this info come from?

What info??

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...
Thats your situation and doesnt mean that is the way it is for all
NCP's.
For example currently im responsible, the CP, for a larger share of the
support amount than the NCP is based on the fact that I make more than
he
does. Is that fair?

But that's you situation! In the majority of situations, the men pay
more.

I dont agree based on the average support order and the cost of raising a
child today.
Where do you get your information??

Do I think it is fair that either parent be required to pay more? No. I
think that if support has to change hands (because 50/50 custody has been
rejected) then each parent should pay their fair share of the basic needs
of
the child. Only the basic needs. Anything beyond that should be
voluntary.

Didnt I already say something like this?? 50/50 is rejected in many cases
for all kinds of reasons. I think that the BASIC NEEDS of the child should
be met based on the percentage of income a parent makes if a 50/50
arrangment is not agreeed upon. If a person wants their child to have more
stuff, nice things, etc then they can buy it for their child after the BASIC
support needs are met.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
...

The other side to all this is the fact that CSE only collected, I
beleive
50% of all child support that was ordered. Obviously the NCP isnt
meeting
60% of the childs needs as someone suggested.
==
I have no idea what you are talking about here. You must have no
knowledge
of income shares CS models.

All states dont use this model you speak of.
==
No they don't. But they still use a percentage of income regardless of
actual (reasonable) costs.
That is lifestyle support.
==


..................................
I pay a higher percentage of support than the NCP, but I really dont
complain about it. Im thankful if I EVER get a support payment from the
NCP.

She also got the tax exemptions
except for a few years that we took one for the child we had/have in our
custody. She has never paid us a dime support for him, BTW. Now, as I
said--you do the math. Under this CS arrangement, her net income was 48k
per
year and ours was under 27k.

In our state, she would be responsible for the greatest percentage of
support because she made more.
==
She didn't make more. That high income was attributable to the CS we were
paying.
Our lower income was attributable to the support we were paying.
==

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I agree with you on that. I am not pro abortion either. But I really
don't
think that the inability to afford abortion is the reason that most
women
keep children that, before conception, they adamantly said they didn't
want.

I have a very good friend who got pregnant and said before conception that
she didnt want any children. When she got pregnant, the first thing out
of
her mouth wasnt "im going to have this child beacuse I want money from the
father" but rather she couldnt emotionally bring herself to the point of
killing a child. For her abortion wasnt even a choice because of her
upbringing. Thats why I dont agree with what you guys are saying here,
most
women who get pregnant after contraception fails dont go hunting for the
father and decide to have a child for monetary gain. That is the last
thing
on their minds.

I don't think that very many women have children for the monetary support
they will gain. But I do think that the reason many children are kept is
because the woman knows that the man will be made to pay child support.
Perhaps more children would be adopted out if the woman knew that she would
be forced to pay for 100% of the child's needs. I will also say that if the
system insisted that custody would be 50/50 and the parents would have to
adjust themselves to the child's needs rather than their own, there would be
much more thought given to bringing children into the world carelessly.

"Fighting for kids" adf wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
My husband found out a couple of years ago that he has a now-14-1/2 year
old
daughter. The mother had never informed him of the fact. They only had
a
1
night stand. Once the paternity results came back, he was charged 2
years
back support. (Than goodness the law protected him from having to pay
back
to the child's birth!)

He shouldnt have to pay back support in my opinon. If she didnt bring to
his attention all this time that he had a child then she shouldnt get
support for that time.

He is not a deadbeat. Every payment due has been
paid since the order was issued. But, because he has arrearages, he is
considered to be one of those that is not up-to-date on his support.
How
many NCPs have fallen on hard times and find themselves on the bad list
for
a couple of partial payments?

I dont think that your husband is a deadbeat, and im sure most people
(except a few sickos
's) would lean the other way. I dont agree with the system right now in
many ways, ive said it before there are some good NCP's that dont deserve
the labels they get. However, a few months or partial payments is one
thing, when a NCP falls $5,000, $10,000, $20,000 behind on payments, jump
from job to job to avoid paying, hide assets, play games they truely are a
deadbeat.

And, BTW, where did this info come from?

What info??

The info about 74% nonpayment