Accountability and Responsibility

One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh, and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says "Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class". So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

If the government threatens anyone with imprisonment over money, then the
money needs to be accounted for.
Problem is, they can't justify the large amounts they extort!

"Henry" wrote in message
...
One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh, and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says "Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class". So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:38:29 -0600, Henry wrote:

One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh, and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says "Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class". So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

This is a perfectly valid complaint. My son and daughter are
adults, and it is many years since I got my ex-wife off my payroll.
However, when I was paying her, it was perfectly clear to me that I
was being forced to support her lifestyle, not that of my daughter.
(For most of the time after the divorce, I had custody of my son, an
arrangement that my ex consented to because she found him too much
trouble.)

Now I still support my son and daughter financially and in
other ways, and am happy to do so, because I do so directly and there
is no element of subsidizing my ex. The fact that I no longer have to
write out large checks each month to my ex is, even after many years,
a great relief.

Like so many aspects of the "child support" system, the
nonaccountability for CS money reflects a simple, and central, fact:
overwhelmingly, CS is money that fathers pay to mothers. In the
current climate in the U.S. and other western countries, when the
interests of the two sexes are in conflict, the female interest always
triumphs. (In this context, note the other thread in this news group
about the court case that ruled that, while DNA testing can be used to
impose a CS obligation on a man, it cannot be used to remove such an
obligation from a man who is NOT the father of the children in
question.)

There will be no reform of this or any of the many other
indefensible aspects of "child support" until there is a change in
underlying factors -- such as an end to the glass ceiling on paternal
custody, or the development of an interest group that can exercise
politically significant clout on behalf of fathers.

A funny thing I have noticed since I retired a few months ago. I now
live on $1200/month, which is $200/month less than C$ cost me. I live in
an 3bd/2car/2 bath in a nice neighborhood and pay all my bills. Funny
how the state believes that a child living with a parent in the
grandparent's home (rent and utility bill free) needs enough to fully
support an entire independent household.
Phil #3



"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:38:29 -0600, Henry wrote:

One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the
usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her
to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do
you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person
fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh,
and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says
"Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why
she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class".
So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I
really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what
the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How
does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I
give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive
to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

This is a perfectly valid complaint. My son and daughter are
adults, and it is many years since I got my ex-wife off my payroll.
However, when I was paying her, it was perfectly clear to me that I
was being forced to support her lifestyle, not that of my daughter.
(For most of the time after the divorce, I had custody of my son, an
arrangement that my ex consented to because she found him too much
trouble.)

Now I still support my son and daughter financially and in
other ways, and am happy to do so, because I do so directly and there
is no element of subsidizing my ex. The fact that I no longer have to
write out large checks each month to my ex is, even after many years,
a great relief.

Like so many aspects of the "child support" system, the
nonaccountability for CS money reflects a simple, and central, fact:
overwhelmingly, CS is money that fathers pay to mothers. In the
current climate in the U.S. and other western countries, when the
interests of the two sexes are in conflict, the female interest always
triumphs. (In this context, note the other thread in this news group
about the court case that ruled that, while DNA testing can be used to
impose a CS obligation on a man, it cannot be used to remove such an
obligation from a man who is NOT the father of the children in
question.)

There will be no reform of this or any of the many other
indefensible aspects of "child support" until there is a change in
underlying factors -- such as an end to the glass ceiling on paternal
custody, or the development of an interest group that can exercise
politically significant clout on behalf of fathers.

I wonder how many kids get a $1200 per month allowance?

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
A funny thing I have noticed since I retired a few months ago. I now live
on $1200/month, which is $200/month less than C$ cost me. I live in an
3bd/2car/2 bath in a nice neighborhood and pay all my bills. Funny how the
state believes that a child living with a parent in the grandparent's home
(rent and utility bill free) needs enough to fully support an entire
independent household.
Phil #3



"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:38:29 -0600, Henry wrote:

One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh, and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says "Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class". So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

This is a perfectly valid complaint. My son and daughter are
adults, and it is many years since I got my ex-wife off my payroll.
However, when I was paying her, it was perfectly clear to me that I
was being forced to support her lifestyle, not that of my daughter.
(For most of the time after the divorce, I had custody of my son, an
arrangement that my ex consented to because she found him too much
trouble.)

Now I still support my son and daughter financially and in
other ways, and am happy to do so, because I do so directly and there
is no element of subsidizing my ex. The fact that I no longer have to
write out large checks each month to my ex is, even after many years,
a great relief.

Like so many aspects of the "child support" system, the
nonaccountability for CS money reflects a simple, and central, fact:
overwhelmingly, CS is money that fathers pay to mothers. In the
current climate in the U.S. and other western countries, when the
interests of the two sexes are in conflict, the female interest always
triumphs. (In this context, note the other thread in this news group
about the court case that ruled that, while DNA testing can be used to
impose a CS obligation on a man, it cannot be used to remove such an
obligation from a man who is NOT the father of the children in
question.)

There will be no reform of this or any of the many other
indefensible aspects of "child support" until there is a change in
underlying factors -- such as an end to the glass ceiling on paternal
custody, or the development of an interest group that can exercise
politically significant clout on behalf of fathers.

Mine do, er.. well OK, $1017.55 But close enough for GovCo work.

"DB" wrote in message
...
I wonder how many kids get a $1200 per month allowance?

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
A funny thing I have noticed since I retired a few months ago. I now live
on $1200/month, which is $200/month less than C$ cost me. I live in an
3bd/2car/2 bath in a nice neighborhood and pay all my bills. Funny how the
state believes that a child living with a parent in the grandparent's home
(rent and utility bill free) needs enough to fully support an entire
independent household.
Phil #3

The answer to the question below is that very, very few kids
get a $1200 per month allowance. However, quite a few mothers get
$1200 per month in "child support."

On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:52:47 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

Mine do, er.. well OK, $1017.55 But close enough for GovCo work.

"DB" wrote in message
.. .
I wonder how many kids get a $1200 per month allowance?

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
A funny thing I have noticed since I retired a few months ago. I now live
on $1200/month, which is $200/month less than C$ cost me. I live in an
3bd/2car/2 bath in a nice neighborhood and pay all my bills. Funny how the
state believes that a child living with a parent in the grandparent's home
(rent and utility bill free) needs enough to fully support an entire
independent household.
Phil #3

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:38:29 -0600, Henry wrote:

One of my (many) complaints about the CS system is the non-
accountability by the recipient parent. As we all know, as soon as I
mention that I would like to see some accountability for the (large)
amount of child support I pay each month, I am bombarded with the usual
"It is CHILD support... it's for the CHILDREN" "How can you be so
mean"... "Stop trying to be a control freak" "How dare you expect her to
keep receipts and track expenditures". "It's none of your business!".
"The guidelines say I do not have to do this!"....

You all know the drill. It is interpreted by everyone as yet another
tactic for bullying the ex-wife. Yet no one replies "Why?". "Why do you
want accountability". Well, I'll tell you why. The average person fails
to understand, or is unwilling to try to understand, the amount of
double paying day in and day out I do. As well, I am constantly
positioned between a rock and a hard place. For example, my child
requires sports equipment for school gym. The total cost; about $40. I
talk to the ex about this and her reply is "I'm not buying it.. oh, and
since the child has no equipment, I have discussed it with his teacher
and he will now be missing gym". I talked with my son and he says "Yeah,
Mom won't buy the equipment" followed by some lame excuse as to why she
cannot afford equipment.. "but I really want to take this gym class". So
I chat with the ex and yup "SHE has decided all this; no equipment and
he sits out the class". BTW we have joint custody, nice, eh. I can say
to my son.. "Yup, too bad, life sucks"... or help him out and buy the
equipment. After paying the ex more than $1K in child support, I really
do not feel like dishing out more cash. And, if I buy the equipment, I
have technically bought it twice. If I don't buy the equipment, what the
heck kind of parent am I to let my child not participate in a simple
school activity. I can't win. Mom, though, gets off Scott free. How does
she do this? And this happens over and over: clothing, lessons,
equipment, etc etc etc etc. Some times I let it go... some times I give
in/give up.

I want accountability because if somehow she spent $1000 on a child in
one month (plus HER share of support), then I would be more receptive to
helping out with costs above CS amounts. But I'll never get that since
I'm just a mean, asshole, control freak wanting to see where all that
cash went.

So my new take on all this; I do not want accountability for the child
support, I want a recipient's responsibility act put in place that
ensures money is spent on the child.

Sheesh.

(thanks for the vent)

This is a perfectly valid complaint. My son and daughter are
adults, and it is many years since I got my ex-wife off my payroll.
However, when I was paying her, it was perfectly clear to me that I
was being forced to support her lifestyle, not that of my daughter.
(For most of the time after the divorce, I had custody of my son, an
arrangement that my ex consented to because she found him too much
trouble.)

Now I still support my son and daughter financially and in
other ways, and am happy to do so, because I do so directly and there
is no element of subsidizing my ex. The fact that I no longer have to
write out large checks each month to my ex is, even after many years,
a great relief.

Like so many aspects of the "child support" system, the
nonaccountability for CS money reflects a simple, and central, fact:
overwhelmingly, CS is money that fathers pay to mothers. In the
current climate in the U.S. and other western countries, when the
interests of the two sexes are in conflict, the female interest always
triumphs. (In this context, note the other thread in this news group
about the court case that ruled that, while DNA testing can be used to
impose a CS obligation on a man, it cannot be used to remove such an
obligation from a man who is NOT the father of the children in
question.)

A slight correction to your previous statement: CS is money that MEN (not
necessarily fathers) pay to mothers. This, of course, assumes that one is
using the REAL (as opposed to the kourt) definition of "father". The
question remains unanswered: If DNA is unnecessary to convict for "child
support", then why have it?


There will be no reform of this or any of the many other
indefensible aspects of "child support" until there is a change in
underlying factors -- such as an end to the glass ceiling on paternal
custody, or the development of an interest group that can exercise
politically significant clout on behalf of fathers.

--
Any man that's good enough to pay child support is good enough to have
custody of such child.
"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...

The answer to the question below is that very, very few kids
get a $1200 per month allowance. However, quite a few mothers get
$1200 per month in "child support."

That's a mortgage payment, including taxes and insurance. All the woman has
to do is secure a 15 year mortgage with zero down, and when she makes the
last payment, she will still have a few more years of FREE INCOME! Ok, I
fudged a lil'; so she has to put 10 percent down. Still, who in their right
mind would NOT jump at the opportunity to own a house for ten cents on the
dollar? I have MY hand raised. Let's not forget that the down payment will
lower the monthly payment thus giving her MORE free cash that she can use to
pay for the loan that funded the down payment. Or, she can use it to pay
extra principal each month, shortening (by years) the amount of time before
she has clear title. I would LOVE that deal. In fact, I would be more than
happy to settle for HALF the amount. Where do I sign up?


On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:52:47 +0100, "Dusty" wrote:

Mine do, er.. well OK, $1017.55 But close enough for GovCo work.

"DB" wrote in message
. ..
I wonder how many kids get a $1200 per month allowance?

"Phil" wrote in message
m...
A funny thing I have noticed since I retired a few months ago. I now
live
on $1200/month, which is $200/month less than C$ cost me. I live in an
3bd/2car/2 bath in a nice neighborhood and pay all my bills. Funny how
the
state believes that a child living with a parent in the grandparent's
home
(rent and utility bill free) needs enough to fully support an entire
independent household.
Phil #3