If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
In article . net, Bob Whiteside
says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. ==== Except that subsequent children are younger with years of dependency before them. The 18 year old can get a job and cover his own expenses as my stepson has during his college years with us. He came to live with us when he turned 18 and his mother kicked him out. He had at least 2 years of high school left due to some learning problems earlier. He lived here and went to high school then college. Of course we covered his expenses during high school which were really minimal--well, he did eat a lot. Oh yeah, and those 20 minute showers--and his perpetual laundering.... He is now entering his senior year of college (honors student now--go figure) and we only see him when he picks up his mail. ==== ==== I did not mean to imply I was unhappy with the situation. My intent was to point out that fathers who step in to help raise children who are a handful for the mothers, can end up having to pay twice - once in CS for the other children, plus another time for ongoing support of an adult child living with them. And in the later teen years the expenses accelerate rapidly. The irony is the child's age overrides the fact the adult child may not be emancipated yet and the system encourages CP mothers to dump the child off onto dad when the actual expenses (not the CS guideline assumptions for expenses) start to rise. My son had a job. I chose not to charge him rent as long as he helped out with some of the household chores. The underlying costs for providing him a place to live, food, etc. were the same pre-18 and post-18. The difference is the CS system stops recognizing those costs at an arbitrary, magical point in time and treats those costs as if they no longer exist. ===== You are suggesting the validity of post-minority CS. That is what CP (moms) argue in states that do not require CS after age 18. It is also what Indy/others argue should be required of CS paying NCPs--ie college expenses. I don't want to go there. ===== ===== |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
In article . net, Bob Whiteside
says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. ==== Except that subsequent children are younger with years of dependency before them. The 18 year old can get a job and cover his own expenses as my stepson has during his college years with us. He came to live with us when he turned 18 and his mother kicked him out. He had at least 2 years of high school left due to some learning problems earlier. He lived here and went to high school then college. Of course we covered his expenses during high school which were really minimal--well, he did eat a lot. Oh yeah, and those 20 minute showers--and his perpetual laundering.... He is now entering his senior year of college (honors student now--go figure) and we only see him when he picks up his mail. ==== ==== I did not mean to imply I was unhappy with the situation. My intent was to point out that fathers who step in to help raise children who are a handful for the mothers, can end up having to pay twice - once in CS for the other children, plus another time for ongoing support of an adult child living with them. And in the later teen years the expenses accelerate rapidly. The irony is the child's age overrides the fact the adult child may not be emancipated yet and the system encourages CP mothers to dump the child off onto dad when the actual expenses (not the CS guideline assumptions for expenses) start to rise. My son had a job. I chose not to charge him rent as long as he helped out with some of the household chores. The underlying costs for providing him a place to live, food, etc. were the same pre-18 and post-18. The difference is the CS system stops recognizing those costs at an arbitrary, magical point in time and treats those costs as if they no longer exist. ===== You are suggesting the validity of post-minority CS. That is what CP (moms) argue in states that do not require CS after age 18. It is also what Indy/others argue should be required of CS paying NCPs--ie college expenses. I don't want to go there. ===== ===== |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
In article et, Bob Whiteside
says... "Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. Yep, it's quite common for mothers to be unable to raise children into decent adults. By the time they are teenagers it's often way too late. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs === Have you checked the price of formula, diapers, baby food lately? === the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. === Not in PA and FL. Child support can be modified "considering the greater needs of older children." === If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. === Geeze Bob, you're proposing CS guidelines be increased due to the age of the child. I feel like we're losing you here. Snap out of it! === === |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
In article et, Bob Whiteside
says... "Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. Yep, it's quite common for mothers to be unable to raise children into decent adults. By the time they are teenagers it's often way too late. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs === Have you checked the price of formula, diapers, baby food lately? === the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. === Not in PA and FL. Child support can be modified "considering the greater needs of older children." === If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. === Geeze Bob, you're proposing CS guidelines be increased due to the age of the child. I feel like we're losing you here. Snap out of it! === === |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
In article et, Bob Whiteside
says... "Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. Yep, it's quite common for mothers to be unable to raise children into decent adults. By the time they are teenagers it's often way too late. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs === Have you checked the price of formula, diapers, baby food lately? === the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. === Not in PA and FL. Child support can be modified "considering the greater needs of older children." === If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. === Geeze Bob, you're proposing CS guidelines be increased due to the age of the child. I feel like we're losing you here. Snap out of it! === === |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Bob" wrote in message Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. I disagree strongly. The C$ system turns children into pawns in the female game of extortion. It changes "what's best for the child" into "what makes mommy the most money." Many teenagers are suffering life long problems because they were so badly hurt by the C$ system. It's a radical feminist social experiment that is a complete disaster for millions of families and children. I've got to ask - Do you have Adult Attention Deficit Disorder? This thread is about FATHERS taking over custody when children get older! Yes, and by then the children have been without a father's guidance for a decade or more and are often severely damaged emotionally and psychologically by then. The mother "can't handle" the teenagers, and she actually couldn't handle preschoolers without their fathers, but they were turned into financial pawns to extort "support" money from dad. My statements have been about the children's ages and expanding needs not being considered, especially when the FATHERS have custody of teenagers. You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. The C$ system can not be "fixed" to change it into a system that doesn't hurt children by its very existence. Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off in a rant? Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off? Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Bob" wrote in message Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. I disagree strongly. The C$ system turns children into pawns in the female game of extortion. It changes "what's best for the child" into "what makes mommy the most money." Many teenagers are suffering life long problems because they were so badly hurt by the C$ system. It's a radical feminist social experiment that is a complete disaster for millions of families and children. I've got to ask - Do you have Adult Attention Deficit Disorder? This thread is about FATHERS taking over custody when children get older! Yes, and by then the children have been without a father's guidance for a decade or more and are often severely damaged emotionally and psychologically by then. The mother "can't handle" the teenagers, and she actually couldn't handle preschoolers without their fathers, but they were turned into financial pawns to extort "support" money from dad. My statements have been about the children's ages and expanding needs not being considered, especially when the FATHERS have custody of teenagers. You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. The C$ system can not be "fixed" to change it into a system that doesn't hurt children by its very existence. Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off in a rant? Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off? Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Bob" wrote in message Yep. the whole C$ system is crap. It hurts children to pay females. I agree the CS system is crap. But it doesn't hurt children to pay mothers. One of many major flaws in the CS system is it is not age adjusted. When an infant has very few needs the CS award is the same as a teenager who has many expensive needs. If anything, children get more expensive as they growth up and the CS system treats them all like they are the same age with the same financial needs. I disagree strongly. The C$ system turns children into pawns in the female game of extortion. It changes "what's best for the child" into "what makes mommy the most money." Many teenagers are suffering life long problems because they were so badly hurt by the C$ system. It's a radical feminist social experiment that is a complete disaster for millions of families and children. I've got to ask - Do you have Adult Attention Deficit Disorder? This thread is about FATHERS taking over custody when children get older! Yes, and by then the children have been without a father's guidance for a decade or more and are often severely damaged emotionally and psychologically by then. The mother "can't handle" the teenagers, and she actually couldn't handle preschoolers without their fathers, but they were turned into financial pawns to extort "support" money from dad. My statements have been about the children's ages and expanding needs not being considered, especially when the FATHERS have custody of teenagers. You can't make wrong into right by doing wrong more effectively. The C$ system can not be "fixed" to change it into a system that doesn't hurt children by its very existence. Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off in a rant? Do you ever read this stuff before spouting off? Bob -- When did we divide into sides? "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/ |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. ==== Except that subsequent children are younger with years of dependency before them. The 18 year old can get a job and cover his own expenses as my stepson has during his college years with us. He came to live with us when he turned 18 and his mother kicked him out. He had at least 2 years of high school left due to some learning problems earlier. He lived here and went to high school then college. Of course we covered his expenses during high school which were really minimal--well, he did eat a lot. Oh yeah, and those 20 minute showers--and his perpetual laundering.... He is now entering his senior year of college (honors student now--go figure) and we only see him when he picks up his mail. ==== ==== I did not mean to imply I was unhappy with the situation. My intent was to point out that fathers who step in to help raise children who are a handful for the mothers, can end up having to pay twice - once in CS for the other children, plus another time for ongoing support of an adult child living with them. And in the later teen years the expenses accelerate rapidly. The irony is the child's age overrides the fact the adult child may not be emancipated yet and the system encourages CP mothers to dump the child off onto dad when the actual expenses (not the CS guideline assumptions for expenses) start to rise. My son had a job. I chose not to charge him rent as long as he helped out with some of the household chores. The underlying costs for providing him a place to live, food, etc. were the same pre-18 and post-18. The difference is the CS system stops recognizing those costs at an arbitrary, magical point in time and treats those costs as if they no longer exist. ===== You are suggesting the validity of post-minority CS. Absolutely not! I am advocating a recognition that EXPENSES for children, other than those who fall under the narrow definitions for CS orders, should be given consideration because they create real out of pocket expenses for parents and step-parents. That would include non-bio children being supported by the NCP in a second marriage, bio-children born to the NCP's new spouse after a divorce, and children who are still living at home after the age of majority. Why should the first woman to get pregnant and have a child get preferential treatment? That is what CP (moms) argue in states that do not require CS after age 18. It is also what Indy/others argue should be required of CS paying NCPs--ie college expenses. I don't want to go there. Neither do I! want judges to be forced to consider all the parental financial obligations without regard for birth order or which parent is bio or non-bio. The current system favors "chosen" children and ignores other children because the "chosen" meet some BS definition of need. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Fathers and Split Custody CS
"Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... "Gini" wrote in message ... In article . net, Bob Whiteside says... I have not seen this CS topic discussed previously, so I thought I'd raise it for discussion. It's fairly common for fathers to get split custody when teenagers become unmanageable for the CP mothers. My son came to live with me when he had just turned 14. My daughter, who is younger, continued to live with her mother. We had split custody. Here's the problem. CS calculations allow for CS payment offsets and the parent with the higher income pays the parent with the lower income the offset amount. An example would be parent A owes parent B $600 and parent B owes parent A $300. Parent A pays parent B the $300 difference. And parent B is not subjected to any CS enforcement tactics. When the older child reaches 18, the mother can go back to court and get the CS increased for the under 18 child. Even though the older child stills lives with the father, the mother can have the offset eliminated, and get a full 100% share of the CS for the remaining minor child. The parent B CS received goes from $300 to $600 even though parent A still has the ongoing expenses related to having the over 18 child live with them. This is an example where a biological child is treated the same way children in second marriages are treated, i.e. they are ignored by the CS system that pretends they do not exist for CS calculations. ==== Except that subsequent children are younger with years of dependency before them. The 18 year old can get a job and cover his own expenses as my stepson has during his college years with us. He came to live with us when he turned 18 and his mother kicked him out. He had at least 2 years of high school left due to some learning problems earlier. He lived here and went to high school then college. Of course we covered his expenses during high school which were really minimal--well, he did eat a lot. Oh yeah, and those 20 minute showers--and his perpetual laundering.... He is now entering his senior year of college (honors student now--go figure) and we only see him when he picks up his mail. ==== ==== I did not mean to imply I was unhappy with the situation. My intent was to point out that fathers who step in to help raise children who are a handful for the mothers, can end up having to pay twice - once in CS for the other children, plus another time for ongoing support of an adult child living with them. And in the later teen years the expenses accelerate rapidly. The irony is the child's age overrides the fact the adult child may not be emancipated yet and the system encourages CP mothers to dump the child off onto dad when the actual expenses (not the CS guideline assumptions for expenses) start to rise. My son had a job. I chose not to charge him rent as long as he helped out with some of the household chores. The underlying costs for providing him a place to live, food, etc. were the same pre-18 and post-18. The difference is the CS system stops recognizing those costs at an arbitrary, magical point in time and treats those costs as if they no longer exist. ===== You are suggesting the validity of post-minority CS. Absolutely not! I am advocating a recognition that EXPENSES for children, other than those who fall under the narrow definitions for CS orders, should be given consideration because they create real out of pocket expenses for parents and step-parents. That would include non-bio children being supported by the NCP in a second marriage, bio-children born to the NCP's new spouse after a divorce, and children who are still living at home after the age of majority. Why should the first woman to get pregnant and have a child get preferential treatment? That is what CP (moms) argue in states that do not require CS after age 18. It is also what Indy/others argue should be required of CS paying NCPs--ie college expenses. I don't want to go there. Neither do I! want judges to be forced to consider all the parental financial obligations without regard for birth order or which parent is bio or non-bio. The current system favors "chosen" children and ignores other children because the "chosen" meet some BS definition of need. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
(Copied Post): Fairness of Family Courts | Werebat | Child Support | 0 | April 4th 04 09:14 AM |
Statistics for Sheila | Bobbi | Child Support | 11 | March 3rd 04 03:35 PM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |