WA: Child-support payments criteria called outdated

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dusty wrote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...support14.html

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Child-support payments criteria called outdated
State-sponsored panel urges revision of law

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A committee gathered by the Department of Social and Health Services
has
concluded that the criteria judges use to determine child support
payments
are outdated and need to be revised by the Legislature.

The 31-page report on child support guidelines was issued earlier this
month
by a panel of 22 community members from social services and law
enforcement.

The document includes several recommendations regarding the standards
used
to determine child support payments.

But the most important recommendation in the panel's report, according
to a
DSHS spokesman, was that the Legislature change the law to make sure
that
the child support schedule be reviewed at least every four years.

Child support payments are determined by tabulating each parent's
income;
the number, ages and health of the children in question; and sometimes
also
by the relevant visitation arrangements.

A judge decrees the final monthly payment.

The standards used to determine child support payments need to be
updated
"to make sure the basic needs of the children are met," said David
Stillman,
director of the DSHS Division of Child Support.

The panel also recommended that the child support schedule be revised
to
make sure that judges consider children from earlier marriages when
determining what parents owe in child support.

The Legislature can choose to adopt or reject each of the report's
recommendations, said DSHS spokesman Adolfo Capestany.

Gov. Christine Gregoire asked the DSHS Division of Child Support in
March to
assemble the panel.

P-I reporter Sam Skolnik can be reached at 206-448-8334 or
.

Translation, we wanna raise child support.

Oh yeah, and if you had earlier kids, that can be taken into account,
but screw your later children. I have never understood the rationale to
this, having more children to lower child support is probably the most
ignorant thing I have ever heard of . . .

Then why do so many CS-paying parents seem to think that if they have
subsequent children, their CS should be lowered?

Seems to me I've read about a few cases where the CP has another child
and wants to be a SAH mom, and expects dad to be forced to pay more, now
that she is no longer working.

Agreed - though seems to me that on this newsgroup, I see more of the
fathers going on to have more children, asking how to lower their child
support, than the mothers having more children and asking about how to get
an increase.

Particularly, I've seen a goodly number of men who remarry, have a new
child, with a new stay at home wife, and asking how to lower their child
support so that their current wife can stay home, rather than supporting
the child that is also hers.

On this newsgroup, you may be correct. I see a lot of this outside the
newsgroup, too. Parents tend to tell their problems to a sympathetic ear,
and I have heard many stories over the years. Can you imagine divorcing,
dividing property in a way agreed to by both parties, then suing 7 years
later because the property your ex retained has increased more in value than
the property you got? I've seen it happen. I have had a 5 year old tell me
that she could not go to Disneyland because "Daddy doesn't pay enough money
for me." Daddy is unemployed and struggling to find work. People do all
sorts of horrible things for revenge, or to get what they want, or to make
sure the other person does NOT get what they want, or for some reason that
they can't even voice. I do not understand why the system, however, chooses
which children are important enough to support, and which are not. ALL
children need support!

Picture this scenario: Divorce, Mom gets custody, Dad pays $$$. Mom
remarries, has 2 more kids. Support remains the same. New hubby is killed
in a traffic accident. His income is no longer there. No life insurance.
Soc security minimal. Should Dad # 1 have his CS increased because Mom no
longer has enough income to pay her previously assigned share?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:QlXyf.3087$8r1.1409@trndny01...

"Moon Shyne" wrote
......................

Then why do so many CS-paying parents seem to think
that if they have subsequent children, their CS should be lowered?
===
Because none of the children should be treated unequally or
preferentially.
===

Unfortunately, it's not a fair world, as we all know. Certainly, when my
children were born, there were already 2 existing children, and existing
child support orders - perhaps we were the odd ones in assuming that the
existing responsibilities would continue at their existing levels, rather
than assuming they would be reduced for the subsequent children?
==
Perhaps.
==

Moon Shyne wrote:
wrote in message ups.com...

Dusty wrote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...support14.html

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Child-support payments criteria called outdated
State-sponsored panel urges revision of law

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A committee gathered by the Department of Social and Health Services has
concluded that the criteria judges use to determine child support payments
are outdated and need to be revised by the Legislature.

The 31-page report on child support guidelines was issued earlier this month
by a panel of 22 community members from social services and law enforcement.

The document includes several recommendations regarding the standards used
to determine child support payments.

But the most important recommendation in the panel's report, according to a
DSHS spokesman, was that the Legislature change the law to make sure that
the child support schedule be reviewed at least every four years.

Child support payments are determined by tabulating each parent's income;
the number, ages and health of the children in question; and sometimes also
by the relevant visitation arrangements.

A judge decrees the final monthly payment.

The standards used to determine child support payments need to be updated
"to make sure the basic needs of the children are met," said David Stillman,
director of the DSHS Division of Child Support.

The panel also recommended that the child support schedule be revised to
make sure that judges consider children from earlier marriages when
determining what parents owe in child support.

The Legislature can choose to adopt or reject each of the report's
recommendations, said DSHS spokesman Adolfo Capestany.

Gov. Christine Gregoire asked the DSHS Division of Child Support in March to
assemble the panel.

P-I reporter Sam Skolnik can be reached at 206-448-8334 or
.

Translation, we wanna raise child support.

Oh yeah, and if you had earlier kids, that can be taken into account,
but screw your later children. I have never understood the rationale to
this, having more children to lower child support is probably the most
ignorant thing I have ever heard of . . .

Then why do so many CS-paying parents seem to think that if they have subsequent children, their CS should be lowered?

You need to make a distinction between equitable notions and what I
actually said. Having more children to lower child support is probably
the most ignorant thing I have ever heard of, because the additional
cost of the child would be more than any meager reduction, even if,
hypothetically, this was allowed.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

[snip]

On this newsgroup, you may be correct. I see a lot of this outside the
newsgroup, too. Parents tend to tell their problems to a sympathetic ear,
and I have heard many stories over the years. Can you imagine divorcing,
dividing property in a way agreed to by both parties, then suing 7 years
later because the property your ex retained has increased more in value
than the property you got? I've seen it happen. I have had a 5 year old
tell me that she could not go to Disneyland because "Daddy doesn't pay
enough money for me." Daddy is unemployed and struggling to find work.
People do all sorts of horrible things for revenge, or to get what they
want, or to make sure the other person does NOT get what they want, or for
some reason that they can't even voice. I do not understand why the
system, however, chooses which children are important enough to support,
and which are not. ALL children need support!

Picture this scenario: Divorce, Mom gets custody, Dad pays $$$. Mom
remarries, has 2 more kids. Support remains the same. New hubby is
killed in a traffic accident. His income is no longer there. No life
insurance. Soc security minimal. Should Dad # 1 have his CS increased
because Mom no longer has enough income to pay her previously assigned
share?

There are those that would say "Yes" to this question. But that answer
flies in the face of commonsense and reason.

Of course, we all know that commonsense and reason do not apply in "family"
court...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
ups.com...

Dusty wrote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...support14.html

Saturday, January 14, 2006

Child-support payments criteria called outdated
State-sponsored panel urges revision of law

By SAM SKOLNIK
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

A committee gathered by the Department of Social and Health Services
has
concluded that the criteria judges use to determine child support
payments
are outdated and need to be revised by the Legislature.

The 31-page report on child support guidelines was issued earlier
this month
by a panel of 22 community members from social services and law
enforcement.

The document includes several recommendations regarding the standards
used
to determine child support payments.

But the most important recommendation in the panel's report,
according to a
DSHS spokesman, was that the Legislature change the law to make sure
that
the child support schedule be reviewed at least every four years.

Child support payments are determined by tabulating each parent's
income;
the number, ages and health of the children in question; and
sometimes also
by the relevant visitation arrangements.

A judge decrees the final monthly payment.

The standards used to determine child support payments need to be
updated
"to make sure the basic needs of the children are met," said David
Stillman,
director of the DSHS Division of Child Support.

The panel also recommended that the child support schedule be revised
to
make sure that judges consider children from earlier marriages when
determining what parents owe in child support.

The Legislature can choose to adopt or reject each of the report's
recommendations, said DSHS spokesman Adolfo Capestany.

Gov. Christine Gregoire asked the DSHS Division of Child Support in
March to
assemble the panel.

P-I reporter Sam Skolnik can be reached at 206-448-8334 or
.

Translation, we wanna raise child support.

Oh yeah, and if you had earlier kids, that can be taken into account,
but screw your later children. I have never understood the rationale
to
this, having more children to lower child support is probably the most
ignorant thing I have ever heard of . . .

Then why do so many CS-paying parents seem to think that if they have
subsequent children, their CS should be
lowered?

Seems to me I've read about a few cases where the CP has another child
and wants to be a SAH mom, and expects dad to
be forced to pay more, now that she is no longer working.

Agreed - though seems to me that on this newsgroup, I see more of the
fathers going on to have more children, asking how
to lower their child support, than the mothers having more children and
asking about how to get an increase.

Particularly, I've seen a goodly number of men who remarry, have a new
child, with a new stay at home wife, and asking
how to lower their child support so that their current wife can stay home,
rather than supporting the child that is also
hers.

Got any evidence to back up this anecdote?

Ahhh, angry because I pointed out that your anecdotes weren't the same as facts, got it.

You DID notice, what I presented was prefaced by "it seems to me" and "I've seen"?

You can either agree, or disgree, as you choose - at no time did I present my statements as facts.

You can tell the difference, Bob, can't you?




"I'm a lawyer's daughter, a lawyer's granddaughter, and a judge's niece - I
want to see evidence - cold, hard evidence. Not anecdotes, not stories -
evidence." - Moon Shyne 7/29/01

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

"teachrmama" wrote in message ...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ...

wrote in message ups.com...

Dusty wrote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/...support14.html



On this newsgroup, you may be correct. I see a lot of this outside the newsgroup, too. Parents tend to tell their
problems to a sympathetic ear, and I have heard many stories over the years. Can you imagine divorcing, dividing
property in a way agreed to by both parties, then suing 7 years later because the property your ex retained has
increased more in value than the property you got? I've seen it happen. I have had a 5 year old tell me that she
could not go to Disneyland because "Daddy doesn't pay enough money for me." Daddy is unemployed and struggling to
find work. People do all sorts of horrible things for revenge, or to get what they want, or to make sure the other
person does NOT get what they want, or for some reason that they can't even voice. I do not understand why the
system, however, chooses which children are important enough to support, and which are not. ALL children need
support!

Teach, I'm not disagreeing with you on this one - yes, all children need to be supported. Sometimes, I see what, in my
opinion, is people blaming the wrong target, and other times, I see people who truly seem to prefer to whine and
complain rather than take any substantive steps to actually change things..... but those are different topics, and
different observations


Picture this scenario: Divorce, Mom gets custody, Dad pays $$$. Mom remarries, has 2 more kids. Support remains the
same. New hubby is killed in a traffic accident. His income is no longer there. No life insurance. Soc security
minimal. Should Dad # 1 have his CS increased because Mom no longer has enough income to pay her previously assigned
share?

Of course not - his income hasn't changed, nor has the number of children for whom he is responsible for support - the
only way that I can see that the CS should be increased would be if one or more of the children (not the subsequent
ones) had a proveable, more expensive issue going on - like major medical bills or something.