Where the CS goes....

Just like my daughter's mother...

No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time, to
the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't exactly
what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and sends
1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take
home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids?
There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are compliant
in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the
children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being
used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the
question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids had
nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with
each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court
summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex
putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my
girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new
car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids
needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new
home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh.

....used her income tax "refund" - you know, the kind they give to people who
didn't pay in in the first place - and made a down payment on a Jeep. 5
seats...for her AND 5 kids. Fortunately (?) the oldest son at 12 is doing his
own thing most of the time and rarely goes with them.

Mel Gamble

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
children during the 2+ years he had custody...

do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only
support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
*have
to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
easily. *snicker*


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


"Simpledog" wrote in message
...
Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.


"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Be sure you explain to them ...

I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't being
used
for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge the
college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all the
things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way past
the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge to
ask
her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was
moot,
as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day. So, it
mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the
'guideline'
amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all the
extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra 600
bucks
laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls that
he's not able to do those things anymore.

... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE can do
those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get all
the
same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should remind
mom
that she's now supposed to be supplying those things.

I endorse this strategy 100%. If the father's discretionary spending on the
children is curtailed by an increase in his CS payments to the mother, it is
only fair the father let the children know the money he used to spend on the
children is now money the mother has available to spend on them.

This is how children learn about the impact of CS awards on their fathers
and how the money flows post-divorce. It is an opportunity for fathers to
teach their children about the financial realities of CS money and show
their children how mothers get money they used to spend on the children.

There is nothing wrong with a father telling his children you need to get
your mother to buy all the extras now because I pay her the money through CS
that I used to spend on you.

gini52 wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?
==
My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child
support expenditures
should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only
place there is room for
misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
award.
You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
hands.
==
==

You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue
that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things. It
wouldn't require her to detail every meal, clothing purchase, etc. But it
would require her to show that she did buy the extra things that she used to
justify such a high CS amount. For example, if the CP was awarded an add-on
for horseback riding lessons, I see nothing wrong with requiring the CP to
provide reciepts for the lessons. Same thing for a daycare add-on. Daycare
expenses are variable. A good commercial daycare facility can cost around
$900.00/month, while an unlicensed informal daycare situation may cost as
little as $400/month.

What would be the argument against requiring CPs to provide reciepts for the
add-on items used to increase CS awards beyond the guideline formula, not
that the guideline formula is reasonable, mind you (actually for lower
income people it may be reasonable, except for the pesky fact that they have
a low income). Such an arrangement, would be no more burdensome than the
IRS requirement to provide the receipts for your charitable deductions, if
they ask. Ganted the NCP will probably ask for the receipts every year.

Sorry for the rambling. But I think this idea would be a good compromise
between requiring receipts for everything and not requiring receipts for
anything.

It wouldn't be complicated if you limited the requirement to the add-on
items that increase the CS award beyond the guideline formula. The
guideline formula amount required from the NCP and attributed to the CP is
supposed to cover the child's grocery bill, gasoline usage, utility usage,
clothing, and other basic trappings of raising a child. At lower income
levels, it may not cover these items, but at high income levels it more than
covers them. I don't think requiring an accounting of the add-ons would be
complicated at all, for a couple of reasons. First, there wouldn't be many
of them. Second, the add-on costs would be separate and distinct from
something like a utility bill or grocery bill, and thus easily partitioned
between CP and child.

Zimm wrote in message
...
That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?

I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.

Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!

Zimm

Simpledog wrote:
I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts,
showing
how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money
for
the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue
stream
from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to
500
a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put
100
away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got
wise,
and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good
parent,
but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them?
No.
Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A
2
door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.

There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money
on,
while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.


"Test" wrote in message
news
So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning
to

see

where that money goes:

- about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
- ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
- new mini-van
- new house
- trips
- other non-kid things

And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan,
day
care, clothes, etc.

Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

Tracy wrote in message
news:FGURa.92094$H17.28568@sccrnsc02...
"Zimm" wrote in message
...
That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?

I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.

Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!


I feel the real issue isn't knowing exactly where the money went, but the
idea of having a say on how much is spent. I'm sure many wouldn't feel
they
need to see receipts if they were paying what they believe is reasonable
child support. In other words, if he was paying the original agreed
amount
of $500/month he may feel there is no need for accountability because he
had
a say in the amount. To him $500/month is fair, and it will be used to
support his kids. But when the state jumped in and said $1,000/month -
then
things took a turn for the worse. He couldn't see justification in
$1,000/month. You can expect the custodial parent to jump through hoops
"proving" where the money went, but will that really solve the real issue?
What is the real issue? Would he really feel better handing over
$1,000/month in child support if she could show where that money is going?
Or would he really feel better handing over $$$ in child support if he had
a
*say* in how much and possibly where it was going? I would much rather
see
direct involvement on the part of the NCP. In other words, an agreement
that they'll pay for certain items directly.

Tracy, what you say is partially correct. Yes, having a say would make it
easier. But, that say is only as good as the CP's willingness to allow that
say. If push comes to shove, the CP will prevail, because the money is in
the CP's control and the NCP's only recourse, in the event of disagreement,
is going to court. I see little reason to spend money going to court to
prevent the CP spending the money in the manner she chooses. IOW, even if
the NCP prevails in court and prevents the CP from spending the CS in a
manner contrary to the NCP's wishes, the CP still has the money to spend in
other ways. No sense throwing good money after bad money.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Don't feel so bad. My arrears for three years alone pay for her house
completely. Yet she gets to keep the profit and I don't even have enough
left over to rent a mud hut.


"Simpledog" wrote in message
...
No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time,
to
the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't
exactly
what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and
sends
1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take
home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids?
There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are
compliant
in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the
children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being
used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the
question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids
had
nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with
each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court
summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex
putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my
girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new
car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids
needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new
home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh.




"Tracy" wrote in message
news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
children during the 2+ years he had custody...

do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the
only
support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
*have
to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
easily. *snicker*


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***


"Simpledog" wrote in message
...
Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.


"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?

"frazil" wrote in message
...

gini52 wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?
==
My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child
support expenditures
should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only
place there is room for
misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
award.
You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
hands.
==
==

You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue
that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point.
It
seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things.
===
So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax deductions--I
have boxes of them.
If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order an
audit and, the
judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify
expenditures
is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There
is simply no excuse
to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards.
===
===

gini52 wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

gini52 wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?
==
My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for
child
support expenditures
should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the
only
place there is room for
misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
award.
You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
hands.
==
==

You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would
argue
that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point.
It
seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things.
===
So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax
deductions--I
have boxes of them.
If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order
an
audit and, the
judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify
expenditures
is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There
is simply no excuse
to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards.
===
===

I tend to agree with you. But I'd also be willing to find a compromise
solution. One possible compromise would be to only require receipts when
the CS award exceeds a certain amount or for any add-on expenses included in
the CS award.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Be sure you explain to them ...

I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't
being
used
for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge
the
college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all
the
things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way
past
the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge
to
ask
her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was
moot,
as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day.
So, it
mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the
'guideline'
amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all
the
extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra
600
bucks
laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls
that
he's not able to do those things anymore.

... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE
can do
those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get
all
the
same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should
remind
mom
that she's now supposed to be supplying those things.

I endorse this strategy 100%.

Do you endorse a similar strategy on the part of the CP in cases where the
NCP
doesn't pay the CS?

No. Unfortunately you are mixing increases in CS money being spent and how
that money is distributed between the parents, with non-payment of CS and
money that is not being transferred between the parents. Our legal system
makes the assumption non-payment of CS by an NCP is made up for by the CP
parent replacing any CS money not received with their own money. IOW - the
children do not suffer any adverse affect for non-payment of CS. If a CP
were to make the complaint you suggested, they would be falsely representing
the legal precedence of their circumstance to the children.

Arrearages are routinely assigned to the CP only under this legal principle
and where this really shows is when payments are made directly to an adult
child. If arrearages occur, they accrue to the CP, not the child, even
though the child is named as the "pay to" party for the CS. Another example
is when CS arrearages are still being paid to the CP after the children are
grown and no longer in the CP's household. The CP is the judgment creditor
and the children have no claim to CS money.

If a CP were to complain about non-payment of CS to their children causing
them to suffer adverse affects they would be making a complaint to the
children that could not be backed up in the law. When an NCP tells his
children he is paying more money to their mother so she can spend more on
them, he is making a statement that can be backed up in the law.


Would that be ok with you too? Or is it only permissible for dad to say
things
like this?

See above.

"Simpledog" wrote in message
...
No, you shouldn't.

Not *I*. I wasn't talking about me. I wouldn't hand over anything to my
ex, nor would I even question if I should.


As I said,

"As you said"??? Said what??? Shall we review what *you* said to Jon? The
comment *you* made to Jon was a snide remark directed at him concerning him
spending $75 on a dinner.

Your words to Jon, "Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the
child." == that after he clearly stated he received his *first* child
support check *after* raising his son plus his ex's son (Jon's
"ex"-step-son) for two years straight.

So what was it that you said? What was it that *I* replied to?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



"Tracy" wrote in message
news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
children during the 2+ years he had custody...

do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the
only
support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
*have
to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
easily. *snicker*

"Simpledog" wrote in message
...
Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.


"Jon" wrote in message
...

I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
for
over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
send the receipt?