Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Rags" wrote
Chris wrote:
.....................................
Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?
==
Most of us here (acs) believe that 50/50 should be the default custody
situation, with each
parent covering their own expenses for the child(ren), eliminating the need
for child support and
"custodial" and "non custodial" parent, which inherently creates division.
There are, of course,
case by case exceptions that will be needed but the court should *always*
begin with both parents
on a level playing field. BTW, Rags, I really enjoy your posts--We have few
who disagree with us
as eloquently as you do. Thanks for your civility and decorum :-)

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
Chris wrote:
....................................
Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?
==
Most of us here (acs) believe that 50/50 should be the default custody
situation, with each
parent covering their own expenses for the child(ren), eliminating the need
for child support and
"custodial" and "non custodial" parent, which inherently creates division.
There are, of course,
case by case exceptions that will be needed but the court should *always*
begin with both parents
on a level playing field. BTW, Rags, I really enjoy your posts--We have few
who disagree with us
as eloquently as you do. Thanks for your civility and decorum :-)

Gini,

Thanks for the compliment. I appreciate civil interaction. When I
was going through my foul mouthed phase as a kid, my Dad informed me
that "Profanity is the crutch of an intellectual cripple" (I think he
stole the line from a movie) and that when someone starts cursing
during a disagreement the other person is winning. Though I do
occasionally loose it, since then, I try to keep a reasonable tone of
civility in my communications.

I don't disagree with you, Teach, Bob, Chris and some of the others.
In fact I agree predominantly with the start at 50/50 (custody and
cost) perspective and adjust from there based on the specifics of each
situation. The courts seem to start at the CP/NCP CS point and move
even more out of control from that point. I started participating in
this forum at a point focused more on $ to provide for the kids
standard of living. Several forum participants have recommended that
I shift my focus away from the $, most recently Chris. That is
probably a good idea. Though $ to provide for kids is important, it
is not at the heart of the issue.

My perspective on the issue is driven by my own experiences in the
CS/Family Law courts as a Step Dad. Which, BTW, were wholly
irritating, frustrating and maddening. Even when things have gone
predominantly my wife's direction and IMO in the best interest of my
SS, elements of the experience have been nauseating.


I have no bio children so I have not had to deal with the CP/NCP issue
other than as an interested and involved third party parent. As
frustrated as I get with the CS/Family Courts as a Step Dad, I can
imagine how insane a Bio Parent would get.

It appears that many involved in custody/support/visitation situations
use the family courts as a conduit to stick it to the Ex. Starting
all custody/support/visitation situations at 50/50 (custody and cost)
focuses on the kid(s) and minimizes the contention.

I look forward to continuing to monitor and participate in this forum.

Regards,
Rags

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the child
if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would
advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent income
and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living improvements
or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is
entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to their
child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental responsibility
in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow
minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right thing
to do.

So let's just make a law enforcing it.

I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.

I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed in
the criminal or civil courts.

" L I B ", you got it right!




Until they reach the age of majority, children should have the same
standard of living as their parents. I don't propose that there
should
be $ for $ equity in spending for every person in the household. But
I do propose that equity in the predominate standard of living be
available to all members of a houshold. In non intact families, the
children should at least have the benefit of a standard of living as
close as possible to what could be provided by their parents joint
income within reason.

Such "reason" to be determined by each individual parent, just as it is
in
YOUR home.

The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.

Chris,

That is probably a good idea. Though $ to provide for kids is
important, it is not the heart of the issue.

Regards,
Rags


Regards,
Rags



I also believe that the overwhelming majority of parents whether in
intact or non intact families provide the best standard of living that
they can for their kids.

More specifically, the best standard that the courts allow. Don't
forget,
physical care is a small part of the total ingredients when it comes to
"standard of living".


Regards,
Rags
==

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the
child
if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would
advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent
income
and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living
improvements
or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent
income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is
entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to
their
child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment
and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business
tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental
responsibility
in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or
not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example
where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow
minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by
the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by
parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right
thing
to do.

So let's just make a law enforcing it.

I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and
let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.

I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household
or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed
in
the criminal or civil courts.

" L I B ", you got it right!

Pardon my ignorance on this. What does "L I B" mean?

Just an acronym pronounced phonetically meaning "hell I'll be".







The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time
with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.


Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?

The parent that removes the children is responsible to return them.
Children ought to be afforded the opportunity to be with BOTH parents ALL of
the time. But due to the government's anti-family crusade, they make sure
this does not happen. If both parents are EQUALLY responsible for the
existence and care of said children, then both should have EQUAL custodial
rights. If a woman is not happy with her family situation, then perhaps it
is SHE who should leave rather than forcing the father to leave! Am I
missing something here?


Regards,
Rags

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Rags" wrote in message
oups.com...

Gini wrote:
"Rags" wrote
..............................
However,
what about improved lifestyle/education/healthcare for the
child
if
either parent increases their earnings income? I would
advocate
setting a base $ that is a percentage of total bio parent
income
and
dividing by two. This would allow for cost of living
improvements
or
reductions over time based on changes to total bio parent
income.
==
"Cost of living improvements?" No child in an intact family is
entitled
to
such accomodation and no parent in an intact
relationship is mandated to provide such an accomodation to
their
child.
Why should children of divorce have such preferential treatment
and
noncustodial parents
alone, have such a mandate? The base support has no business
tied to
income.
Period. It should
be tied to basic needs as it is for children/parental
responsibility
in
intact homes.

Gini,

I don't believe that supporting a child has anything to do with
entitlement. Certainly no parent in any family whether intact or
not
is under any mandate to spend any money above subsistance food,
clothing and housing on their child. However, I know no example
where
financialy successful parents of an intact household do not allow
minor
children to share in better housing, food, clothes etc provided by
the
parents. How would anything else work?

As income goes up the overall lifestyle of the family goes up.
Children should share in the improved lifestyle provided by
parental
income whether in an intact family or not. IMO it is the right
thing
to do.

So let's just make a law enforcing it.

I am not a big proponent of more laws for the sake of law. I believe
that judges should be held accountable for applying existing law, not
legislating from the bench. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority
if family law is case law and not legislated law.

Personally, I could not envision gaining ever increasing
financial success and not allowing my minor children to enjoy the
benefits of that success along with my wife and I.

That's great. So how about you raise YOUR children how YOU want, and
let
other parents raise their children how THEY want.

I have no dog in the hunt of what goes on in someone elses household
or
family. As long as there is no child abuse, neglect or laws being
violated, I beleive the courts (family or other wise) should stay out
of peoples lives. If courts ruled only on existng law, there would be
no need for family courts. All legal issues could then be addressed
in
the criminal or civil courts.

" L I B ", you got it right!

Pardon my ignorance on this. What does "L I B" mean?

Just an acronym pronounced phonetically meaning "hell I'll be".







The whole existence of the current system is predicated on the
inability of estranged parents to agree on and execute a joint
parenting strategy. Disparate parenting and spending habits between
households can tear a kid a part. How do you think this should be
dealt with in order to protect the child? Is there even a solution?

Indeed there is! 50% of the time with one parent and 50% of the time
with
the other. How about that!
With all due respect, ya gotta get your mind away from this money thing.


Obviosly the 50/50 thing would work if the parents lived near enough.
I know that California does not allow a CP to move out of state with
the kids without NCP and court approval. I believe that most other
states do not have this restriction.

How would you deal with an interstate situation?

The parent that removes the children is responsible to return them.
Children ought to be afforded the opportunity to be with BOTH parents ALL of
the time. But due to the government's anti-family crusade, they make sure
this does not happen. If both parents are EQUALLY responsible for the
existence and care of said children, then both should have EQUAL custodial
rights. If a woman is not happy with her family situation, then perhaps it
is SHE who should leave rather than forcing the father to leave! Am I
missing something here?

Chris,

Nope, your not missing a thing. I was just interested on your
prespective on addressing interstate custody/support/visitation
situations. Your perspective on this is fair - the parent who moves
out of state pays for travel.

In my SSs case, the courts ruled that each party is responsible for
getting the child to their location for visitation purposes,
fundamentally splitting the travel costs.

Thanks for the clarification on LIB.

Regards,
Rags

All,

Though not my usually evening TV fare, did anyone by chance watch Dr
Phil last night?

The first half was focused on an NCP Dad not paying CS ($900/mo) for a
year to CP Mom. NCP Dad was father to one of CP Moms 3 children and
the only one who married her and the only one who had ever paid child
support. NCP refused to pay due to lack of accountability of where
the $ went and based on an extreme reduction in his income.

CP Mom was in dire straits financially. Her financial issues were more
attributable to living well above here means than receiving CS.

Any comments on the show?

Regards,
Rags

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Regards,
Rags

"Rags" wrote
All,

Though not my usually evening TV fare, did anyone by chance watch Dr
Phil last night?

The first half was focused on an NCP Dad not paying CS ($900/mo) for a
year to CP Mom. NCP Dad was father to one of CP Moms 3 children and
the only one who married her and the only one who had ever paid child
support. NCP refused to pay due to lack of accountability of where
the $ went and based on an extreme reduction in his income.

CP Mom was in dire straits financially. Her financial issues were more
attributable to living well above here means than receiving CS.

Any comments on the show?
==
I didn't see the show, never have-- but, when a mother is short of funds it
is *never* because she mismanages money, or is undereducated,
or is lazy. It is always due to some fault or inaction of the NCP. When the
NCP is short on funds, it is *always* because
he mismanages money, is lazy. underemployed. etc. We see it here all the
time--A CP is sort of funds and the first, very first action is not to
get another job, education, spending cuts, it is always because the NCP
isn't sending enough for her desired lifestyle. Society
and the system have convinced CPs that NCPs owe them and owe them and owe
them. This has turned CPs into entitlement
queens of the worst kind and the blame can be put squarely on the shoulders
of feminism. Just sayin'.

"Rags" wrote in message
ps.com...

All,

An excerpt from a Canadian CS site.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/sup/pub/guide/q_a.html#1

Do the guidelines take into account the income of the receiving parent?

The guidelines set the paying parent's contribution in accordance with
the average proportion of income that a person at that income level
spends on his or her children. In other words, the guidelines ask
"what would a parent with this income usually spend on his or her
children?" and set the support payment accordingly. The parent's
financial contribution is set according to his or her own income.

The receiving parent is expected to contribute a similar share of his
or her income to meet the costs of raising the child. The standards of
living of the child and the receiving parent are inseparable because
the child resides in his or her household. This approach allows the
children to continue to share in increases or decreases in their
parents' income, just as they would have if the two parents had
continued to live together.


Any thoughts?

Yes, as a matter of fact. It may look good on paper, but it just isn't done
that way. When my husband went to court to have CS set for the daughter he
had just found out about, the judge told him that his other children were
irrelevant. That the only child who mattered was the one CS was being set
for, and CS was set as if she were the only child that needed any access to
that income. And the woman doesn't work at all!!

"Gini" wrote in message
news:QoSZg.5540$5v5.3652@trndny08...

"Rags" wrote
All,

Though not my usually evening TV fare, did anyone by chance watch Dr
Phil last night?

The first half was focused on an NCP Dad not paying CS ($900/mo) for a
year to CP Mom. NCP Dad was father to one of CP Moms 3 children and
the only one who married her and the only one who had ever paid child
support. NCP refused to pay due to lack of accountability of where
the $ went and based on an extreme reduction in his income.

CP Mom was in dire straits financially. Her financial issues were more
attributable to living well above here means than receiving CS.

Any comments on the show?
==
I didn't see the show, never have-- but, when a mother is short of funds
it
is *never* because she mismanages money, or is undereducated,
or is lazy. It is always due to some fault or inaction of the NCP. When
the
NCP is short on funds, it is *always* because
he mismanages money, is lazy. underemployed. etc. We see it here all the
time--A CP is sort of funds and the first, very first action is not to
get another job, education, spending cuts, it is always because the NCP
isn't sending enough for her desired lifestyle. Society
and the system have convinced CPs that NCPs owe them and owe them and owe
them. This has turned CPs into entitlement
queens of the worst kind and the blame can be put squarely on the
shoulders
of feminism. Just sayin'.

They may be queens, but guess what; they still have to sit on the same
"throne" as the rest of us!