Pay someone for their decision?

"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.
==
I'm angry with the system. That is a good thing. Now, you are repeating the
same arguments no matter
what anyone says to help you understand that some (many) of your assumptions
are wrong. Then you say you weren't
talking about all that other stuff. Of course, not--but why not? Do you
think that whatever you know now is the entire scope of the situation? It is
clear from your postings that you are missing a substantial part of the
puzzle.
(More Below)
==

"Gini" wrote in message
...
==
The why the hell are you not out there demanding that CPs use the child
support only for the children
and to make sure the CP contributes her percent share of the costs
instead
of handing the kid a bowl
of soup and pocketing the rest of the money for her beer and clothes?

Well, frankly I dont support CP's that do this, men or women. That money
is
to be used on the children. I think that CP's should be held accountable
for the money they receive. SOme type of audit.
==
Excellent!!
==
On the other hand, I dont
support NCP's that dont pay support either.
==
We don't either--well, most of us don't
==
I would highly doubt that ALL
CP's buy beer and clothing for themselves with the money, although im not
denying that there are CP's that do that, but the majority??? I dont
think
so.
==
But, to just hand it to them and not ensure it reaches the kids is a serious
flaw in the system.
==

And
why aren't you clamoring for
default 50/50 custody, except in cases of proven abuse, because studies
show
that kids must have
continuing liberal access to both parents?

Who said I wasnt?? The "unilaterial decision" is something we were
discussing, not my views on custody.
I dont agree with a "true" 50/50 custody arrangment.
...................................

What the hell do you think is in
the child's best interest and why are
you not even capable of admitting that the system operates solely to put
money in the pocket of the
CP and does absolutely *nothing* in the real interests of the child?

I dont agree with what you are saying here, because I know a lot of CP's
that use that money for the childrens needs and meet or exceed that amount
out of their own pockets. The system doesnt "operate soley to put money
in
the pocket of the CP", like you think it does. The children are minors
(and
frankly most parents when they are seperated dont act much better),
someone
has to operate the finances for the childs care. It usually goes to the
CP
because they are the ones that address most of the childs needs and take
care of the child. Now, as Ive said above there should be an audit of
this
money and adjustments made if the childrens needs are not being met by
both
parents.

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.
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). 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. 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. 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 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.
==
==

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

And are you out fighting to make sure this happens? To make sure that men
only pay 1/2 of the actual needs of a child, and aren't being held
responsible for fancy clothes and fancy cars?

Im actively fighting for children to get their needs met. I think each
parent should be equalily responsible for their children in ALL aspects,
financially and emtionally. I agree that both parents should be in their
childrens lives 50/50 (or as close as possible) and when that isnt an option
then the support amount should be adjusted.

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

But who gets to pay the monetary price, FFK? It's not the women, for
the
most part.

Ha ha, I think you need to research some more. If my memory serves me
correctly something like 74% of those ordered to pay support pay it at
least
one payment, that leaves what the other 26% that actually pay support on a
regular basis. With a 50% payment rate total, I would say that the
monetary
price of children falls on the CP's shoulder and NOT on the NCP's
shoulder.

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 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?

And, BTW, where did this info come from?




IF the system
required BOTH parents to pay $XX per month, and made sure that both do
pay
their part, there maight not be so much bitterness on the part of men.
But
it is NOT equal--women are not required to pay a penny!!

Again, you ignorance is showing here. If the CSE offices only collect 50%
of the support ordered and most of that comes from the minority of NCP's
how
is that the women arent required to pay a penny? Im a CP of two children
and I get about 25% of the support ordered, thats 1175 a year or 98 a
month.
I would like you to explain to me HOW this could possibly pay for ALL my
childs expenses?

On the contrary, the mother of my husband's daughter pays $0. Nothing. Not
a cent. Nobody tells her that she needs to get on the stick and pay her
part of the child support. They simply say that "dad" had to pay enough to
care for the child. They list this as 85% of the child's expenses, but the
woman is using it, plus her "low income housing" and food stamps, to
support herself and all of ther children by all of the men who fathered
them.

I am not in favor of men abandoning their children. But neither am I in
favor of the government making decisions that parents should be making for
themselves.

When my students at school come to me complaining in a "he-said-she said"
battle, my response is to have them sit down together and decide how to fix
the situation. They don't go back to their activities until it is worked
out---and I only intervene if things get hot. It's amazing how quickly they
solve their own problems if there is not higher authority to fix it for
them. Perhaps we could use the wisdom of children to help fix the
disgusting system now in place.

I don't know your situation, nor why the father doesn't pay. But, of course
I do not believe that $98 per month supports a child. Maybe you could
provide more info.


And the money they
do receive is not even required to be spent on the children.

No there is no guarantee that the money ends up on being spent on the
children. As ive said before, there should be accountability on the CP's
part. Some states are making them be accountable and ensuring that the
money goes where it is supposed to.

Which states would those be, and how often is the law permitted to be used?


The children
are the victims--I agree. The system is set up as an adversarial system
that doesn't really consider the children. It is set up to wrest money
from
one parent and hand it to the other, using the children as the excuse.

How else is the system supposed to get money to a child who lives
primarily
with one parent. If those in the system now cant be relied on to pay
support then how could they be relied upon to pay for expenses outside the
system?

Why are the children living primarily with one parent? Why are the children
not spending an equal amount of time with both parents? Studies show that
this is far healthier for children, unslee a truly abusive situation exists.


Maybe if we ever put a system in place that truly was there for the
children, we'd see better results. And a big first step would be the
government staying out of the issue until they were really needed
instead
of
butting into families' lives at will.

Usually when systems are put in place, its because not having a system
failed. I agree that the system today is not the best. It has its good
and
bad points.

I would be interested in your opinion of what the good points and the bad
points are, FFC.

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
So the excuse that some women can't afford abortions is not real, then.
Hmmmm......

No I think that there are women who cant afford abortions and dont have a
man standing there saying, Ill pay. What choice do they have but to have
the child?

I personally dont think that abortions are a choice.

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.

teachrmama wrote:
If men and women are equally responsible for the child, why don't we
see more "equal" custody agreements, so both parents can be an equal
part of the child's life? Why don't we see "equal" amounts of child
support being assigned? Why don't we see support orders based on the
child's actual needs, rather than on the amount of the father's
paycheck? "Equally responsible" should mean just that--not "I have
the joy of raising the child on the money you provide." Nothing
equal about that!

Very well said.

"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.

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.



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
My husband pays 85% of the costs for his daughter. Do you really not
consider that being "primarily responsible"? Ask some of the men here
what
percentages they were required to pay. And how often they get to see
their
children. A little enlightenment is in order, I think.

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

And are you out fighting to make sure this happens? To make sure that
men
only pay 1/2 of the actual needs of a child, and aren't being held
responsible for fancy clothes and fancy cars?

Im actively fighting for children to get their needs met. I think each
parent should be equalily responsible for their children in ALL aspects,
financially and emtionally. I agree that both parents should be in their
childrens lives 50/50 (or as close as possible) and when that isnt an
option
then the support amount should be adjusted.

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)

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

"Gini" wrote in message
...
==
Proof of what? Are you really not aware of how percent share CS tables
work?
==
It depends on what state you are in.

The state im in combines the income of both parents. There is a table
that
shows how much a child would cost to raise if the parents were together.
Then each parents percentage of income contribution is used to divide that
support amount up, as if the parents were together. "If'" one parent is
not
working, either minimum wage is used or what their ability to make is
(highest is usually taken, unless there is a special situation).

I know CP's that are made responsible for a higher percentage of the
support
than the NCP and vice versa.
==
And you can really deny, with a straight face, that men typically earn more
and are assessed a higher percent share
(ie more than 50%) of support?
==
==

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

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
responsibility to educate you.
You really should have known that already.
==
==
Thats because those statistics would prove you all very wrong, I dont
need
to educate myself thanks, I already have looked them up.

Then prove it.

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

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.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Actually, women absolutely have a unilateral choice of whether or not a
conceived child will be carried to term.

And thats your view of the issue, but to me thats not what actually happens
in most cases.

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.

Both parents..

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
places.

It means that the contraception method failed or the two had unprotected
sex. It doesnt mean that one person gets to walk away because "they stated
they didnt want a child".


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?

I personally think that when a child is born BOTH parents should have access
to their children and both be financially responsible for their child, isnt
that what ive said the entire time???

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?

I believe, as ive stated previously that true 50/50 is impossible to
accomplish. I think that children should have a homebase, I dont think that
a child having a "home" in two different places works. You cant split a
child, and a child is not property to split.

How would *you* set up the perfect system, Fighting for
KIds?

Perfect system??? I dont think one could actually exsist, but...

Well I would start by NOT allowing child support/custody to happen during a
divorce procedure because children are not "property to be divided". I
would also require that parents who are married have a support / custody
arrangment made WHEN THEY GET Married, that specifies the parenting
arrangements "if" they should divorce. This would really insure whats best
for the children, because the arrangements would be made while the couple is
not fighting and hating each other.

In cases in which there is no marriage, I would set up a system in which the
parents would be required to take some type of class TOGETHER in which they
work out a parenting agreement.

In cases where their is a dispute and the couple has not done or cant do
either above, each parent should be evaluated to determine who should get
"custody" of the child, who is more stable, who can provide the better
environment, who wants the child, etc and then parenting time can be set
forth by a court and support ordered based on BOTH parents income (or income
they can make) and then a percetage of a predetermined amount of support be
divided based on income. I would not allow the CP to not provide.

THE ONLY exception to all these requirements is when the child has special
needs that was not expected in the case of two unmarried people, or it wasnt
accounted for in the married peoples support agreements. I dont care who
you are there often HAS to be someone who stays at home more and works less
when a disabled child is in the "home". The same Exception applies to
those adults who become disabled. A different parenting plan should then be
made to adjust for special circumstances.

The reason that the system doesnt work now, in my opinon, is because the
arrangements are made during the time when the mother and father hate each
other.