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 |
#1401
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "Rags" wrote in message oups.com... There is no easy pat answer to your question. Yes there is. (see below) To me, each situation needs to be taken individually. Unfortunately, courts usually apply a one size fits all solution, mom gets the kids and a child support check regardless of which parent can provide for the best interests of the child. MHO is that that the answer to your question is which ever parent can best provide for the best interest of the child by providing the best environment (academic, moral, financial, etc...). Problem is, that takes us back to square one again. How about letting the parents decide on a 50/50 basis. I presume you are making reference to letting some fool in a black robe make that decision. Well, they've been making the decision for decades, and look where they've gotten us! It boggles my mind how some government yahoo thinks he knows better than a parent how to raise their children. What's even MORE astonishing are the people who support these fools! Chris, I think we are in general agreement that the people best able to make decisions impacting children are the parents. And........... keeping the courts out of the process, unless as a last resort, is almost universally desirable. I have little regard for neither family courts nor the judges that rule them (at least in the state of Oregon). The ones I have observed during my SS's case were, by their actions, obviously not top law school graduates. ........... Your argument looks sound on the surface and even kicks off with a bang. But then it gradually deteriorates into the same old socialist spill. You might correct me if I'm wrong, but apparently you are not too fond of courts that actually apply justice, and highly approve of pro CP courts. Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."? Chris, Wow, I obviously failed to communicate effectively. No, I am not pro CP or pro NCP. I am pro justice. My problem is with courts that tell me as a Step Parent to a CP/NCP custody/visitation/support case that I am "not a party to the case" then proceed to use my income to set CS levels. The only income that should matter is that of the bio parents envolved in the case. Correction: One's personal income is not the business of "child support" court. In fact, there is no reason for such court to exist in the first place. I understand your issue with this. As you stated above, it is the same issue that I have as SD. Again the difference being that I am not a party to the case. If I am not a party to the case, my $ should not be considered. Parent'w whether they want to be or not, are a party to supporting and providing for their kids. Which has ZERO to do with forcing a man to hand his money over to a woman! If my claim was false, then the woman would also have to hand her money to the man in order to qualify as supporting/providing for her children. But guess what, she DOESN'T. My opinion on this would be the same regarless of which side of the NCP/CP fence my spouse falls in. As a Step Parent I have been told by two differenct judges that I am not a party to the case. These judges proceed to threaten me with contempt charges when I refuse to provide information on my income. I ultimately have to provide the info or go to jail until I compy. My perspective is that I am either a party to the case or I am not. If I am a party to the case, then I get to address the court and particpate in the debate and solution. If I am not a party to the case then my $ is not a party to the case. The courts should not be able to have it both ways. The courts I have been in during my SSs custody/visitation/support case ruled that I cannot speak beyond answering direct questions while on the witness stand then proceed to use my income to calculate CS levels. As far as this comment: Would you care to elaborate on your last comment ending with "....and expect to get a free ride on the tax payer or on someone else's check book."? My experience in Oregon courts is that they like to play fast and loose with other peoples money. They also are extremely biased towards residents of their juriscictions. I have watched Oregon courts decide not to consider Wellfare income for one of the CP/NCP parties as income for calculation of CS while counting a Step Parents income as CP/NCP income. This type of thing does not happen in Williamson County TX. Direct income to either the CP or NCP is income whether from wages or wellfare benefits. I believe my stance on the whole CP/NCP CS issue is far from socialist. I believe that what a person earns should be theirs and not the courts to allocate in an inconsistent manner. Keyword: inconsistent. I guess the difference between you and I is that you have no problem with the courts allocating other people's money whereas I DO! What you have described, regarding your issue with the courts, is not unlike what virtually ALL (NCP) fathers experience. If you agree to the kourts controlling their money, then it follows that you should have no problem with them controlling YOUR money. I understand your perspective on this. But, what about the kids? What about them? I think that the differences is that my relationship to the situation is totally voluntary and the courts have informed me repeatedly that I am not a party to the case. Once a child is born, I believe that a certain amount of the joint income of the parents should be used to support the child. That's all good and well, but let each parent that wishes to participate make such decision......... NOT some unrelated fool wearing a black robe! If a woman chooses to relinquish her parental authority over to some court, that's her business. But she has no right to make that same decision for the father. As far as CS is concerned, children should be supported by their parents. I believe that the least screwed up way to decide CS if courts need to be involved is that a percentage of the total CP/NCP income should be allocated for CS and divided by % of income. The more the total combined income of the CP/NCP goes up, the more CS they are both responsible for. If an existing amount of "child support" is sufficient to care for a child, then what is the purpose of increasing it? My answer to the above question is to provide the best possible care for the child and to prepare the child for the future. Why should a child have to live at a lower standard of living than their parents? Because it's sufficient? If Mom gets a raise, the kid gets a raise. If Dad gets a raise, the kid gets a raise. Spoken like a true stalinist. I think the aggrivation lies with the NCP not being able to control what the CP does with the increased CS. If courts must be involved in a CP/NCP situation, I support strict accountability from the CP on where the money goes. Annual audits should be required with financial penalties applied if the CP miss spends the money or cannot support where the money was used. Only problem is judges are under no obligation to follow written laws. Contrarily, they MAKE laws as they go. If over time one party ends up making more, and the other less both are likely to pay more to supprt the child with the highest earner paying a bigger % of the CS. This is the situation in our case. My wife (CP) is a CPA, Bio Dad (NCP) is a plumber and there is a significant difference in their incomes. Every time there is a hearing, my wifes % of the total CS goes up because she earns more. Even though his percentage of the total allocated CS drops, NCPs actual payment rises because the total CP/NCP available $s go up. I believe that that element of the system is fair. Oh my! What I don't like is that the court gives the NCP a $1000/mo credit because I make good $. Big deal. They're STILL extorting money from him. Again, I understand the frustration. However, the courts only set the CS level, they don't spend the money. What the heck's the difference? They're STILL extorting it! The money should only be spent for the interests of the child. (school taxes, clothes, food, utilities, housing, etc.....) CS should have to account for where the money goes. The income the NCPs partner is not considered when calculating support. I hope this clarifies my statement for you. Sadly, it does. Best regards, Rags. Chris, Let me try to clarify a bit more. I have a big problem with the courts telling people what to do with thier money. However, I have a bigger problem with parents who don't provide for their children. I have stated in previous postings that IMO the focus should be on the kids. CPs who keep the NCP from the kids are wrong. NCPs who don't engage with their kids are wrong. CPs/NCPs who do not provide the best situation their resources will allow to provide environmentally, emotionally, morally or financially for their kids are wrong. And a father teaching his children that fathers are unpaid babysitters, just visitors, and that mothers are to be paid to care for their OWN children is morally wrong! Sometimes a third party has to step in to ensure the kids are being provided for addequately by the parents. As poor as they do at this job, the courts are what our society has evolved to address this issue. If all parents did the best they were capable of for their kids and would put their kids first in unfortunate custody/visitation/ support cases then the courts would not have to be involved. As far as extorting money from NCP in my SSs case: I gladly and voluntarily spend far more than the total formulated CS level of $800/mo (NCP pays $350/mo) supporting my SS. We live in a better, more expensive school district because we want the best education we can provide for him. He will likely attend boarding school for high school begining next year because from our observations government schools are more interested in obtaining federal dollars than educating kids. We drive newer, safer cars because we drive he and his friends on a regular basis. We provide very expensive medical, vision and dental care far above what is covered by insurance. (Bio Dad has not payed his 50% of uncovered med expenses in more than 12 years though he has been repeatedly billed for them). We invest significant resources to provide for his college education. All of this I ( and his mom) gladly provide predominantly out of our professional incomes and NCP contributes to in the form of CS. You also get to raise him. Interstingly while NCP complains and fights CS, he has plenty of resources to spend on gadgets for his low rider and purchasing rare game cards. The two are unrelated. If ALL parents would provide voluntarily for their kids, there would be no need for the CS courts to exist. Most fathers are PROHIBITED from providing by these very courts! As frustrating as the whole NCP/CP/family court system is, some parents must be forcably motivated to provide for their kids. The kids should not be the victims in these situations. Yeah, well you're preaching to the choir. I would love to hear your perspective on how we could ensure that CP/NCPs provide for their kids and keep the courts in the business of ruling on law rather than making it. I've posted it COUNTLESS times, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, here it is again: If each parent is 50% of the total amount of "parent", then each parent is entitled to parent 50% of the time. For those who neglect the children during their custodial time, criminal proceedings would be in order. Do you know why this system won't work? Because "family court" (law enforcement) won't LET it work. That's why. Regards, Rags |
#1402
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... snicker More ASSumptions, Marg? What ELSE is new? "pandora" wrote in message news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08... "Rags" wrote ........... 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. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and lots of possessions my daughter didn't have. Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to. What a terrific parent you are, not. The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also the custodial parent receives money. And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your son over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent. CWQ |
#1403
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message news:UtudnQz44dRF6qnYnZ2dnUVZ_qudnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ... "Gini" wrote in message news:WIWYg.4572$5v5.2140@trndny08... "Rags" wrote ........... 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. == Exactly. So the government has no business mandating that some parents provide more than others. It's very simple really. Until the government is willing to mandate ALL parents spend money on their child based on their income, it has no business mandating that ONE parent (NCP) does. It is also notable that while the government has this mandate against one type of parent, it has no mandate that the recipient of the award (CP) spend the money on the child so NO standard of living is assured said child. This is clearly a violation of the equal protection clause of the US Constitution under the guise of "best interest of the child." There is another factor that caused tremendous conflict for me to deal with in a split custody situation. When my son lived with me, and my daughter lived with her mother, my daughter perceived her brother was better off. He lived in a bigger, nicer house in a better neighborhood. He had a car and lots of possessions my daughter didn't have. Obviously you could have corrected that perception but you chose not to. What a terrific parent you are, not. Kinda one sided don't you think? Implying it is up to a custodial father to remedy inequalities in the CS system and giving the custodial mother a free pass. Why don't you think the custodial mother should have provided more for her custodial child to close the gap created in a split custody situation? Oh that's right, I forgot. You believe in gender differences creating gender warfare and any solution should be based on Marxist/socialism redistribution of resources. The Capitalist fathers need to pay the worker mothers to make things equal, right? The CS guidelines are an artificial methodology designed to create the appearance of equality. They do not. They create inequality through too high of CS awards when the higher wage earner pays money and they create inequality when there is split custody. The CS guidelines are only perceived as being fair and equitable when the lower wage earner who is also the custodial parent receives money. And instead of being fair to both your children, you chose to favor your son over your daughter. I'm glad you weren't MY parent. I offered to let her come live with me too. Eventually she did. But her living situation changed for parenting style reasons, not over money issues. |
#1404
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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. 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? 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 == |
#1405
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Rags" wrote ........ 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. == Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social control are you willing to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all parents) provide the basics for their children. Period. (More Below) == ............ 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. == And in intact families? == ....... 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? == When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should become divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They are not even mentioned in the divorce decree. It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to such an extent that it is expected as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state control over them flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in exceptional cases. == |
#1406
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Gini wrote: "Rags" wrote ....... 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. == Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social control are you willing to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all parents) provide the basics for their children. Period. (More Below) == No I do not believe that doing the right thing should be or even can be legislated. I also believe that the current system has created more problems than it has solved. ........... 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. == And in intact families? I made a similar statement applying to intact families prior to the non intact family statement. There should not be a different requirement for intact VS non intact parental obligations. == ...... 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? == When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should become divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They are not even mentioned in the divorce decree. It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to such an extent that it is expected as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state control over them flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in exceptional cases. == If more disolving families were led by parents like you and your husband, there would be little need for the family courts system we are dealing with now. I agree with your pespective on courts only being involved in teh exceptional cases. Unfortunately the courts are forcing all cases into the same solution box. Award custody to one parent, force the other to pay........... the system itself builds contention into broken family situations. Not a good thing. Regards, Rags |
#1407
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Gini" wrote in message news:SJ9Zg.3350$5h6.1113@trndny04... "Rags" wrote ....... 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. == Do you believe in legislating "the right thing to do?" How much social control are you willing to award the state? The state has an interest to ensure parents (all parents) provide the basics for their children. Period. (More Below) == ........... 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. == And in intact families? I believe his position is the same. At least he's consistent, but consistently wrong (concerning the above), mind you. == ...... 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? == When my ex and I divorced, it never occured to us that our kids should become divisable property or to hand over control of our kids to the state. They are not even mentioned in the divorce decree. It is the courts and legislatures that have turned families inside out to such an extent that it is expected as the norm. My contention is that dividing children and giving the state control over them flies in the face of natural progression and should only be done in exceptional cases. Indeed! Children have been protected LONG before any "child support" industry ever existed. And the abolishment of such indusrty will eliminate not a SINGLE one of the protections. == |
#1408
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"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. 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 == |
#1409
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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? 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? Regards, Rags |
#1410
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
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? 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? Regards, Rags |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |