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
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but if the technology allows it then yes. That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since. Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2 working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised, how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time? Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan makes me very nervous! Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his? Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility, there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle. And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages. the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the expenses are reasonable and justified. Papa |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? Right now you have the fathers who are not responsible screwing it up for the fathers that are. The fathers that aren't responsible are whining really loud about how unfair it is that they pay for the life of a child they created. They haven't had involvement? Oh, so what you agree'd to being a father when you dropped trou' and had some fun. It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people deal with several broken systems. If a mother has a child and MoPo find the fathers Dad at age 7 and the woman didn't list the father, or didn't know which jerk was the father, then comes around to the reality of being broke at the child's age 6, then the system should not chase this guy for that first 5-6 years. If the system is designed properly the the mother should not be able to survive on one child's CS income alone. 4 or 5 maybe. I don't agree entirely with equalizing the houshold incomes so that the child has a similar lifestyle if the child never knew that lifestyle of if the lifestyle of the father is dropped to support a better lifestyle for mom because she happens to find a sugar-daddy boyfriend. Living somewhere for "free" or for an exceptional low rent might be considered income for her. I'm in this situation. My ex drives a new car, I have none; She lives in a huge house, I live in a small apartment; She's a Community Centre worker (by choice) after leaving a $75K job. I was out of work and hassled for the market's abundance of workforce for two years and when I tried to work the CS agency where I live took my licence and garnished my wages by more than 50% making my life miserable and making it's nearly too expensive to see my daughters. based on this extremely brief summary of the current system's design flaws for MY situation. I think change is necessary and if the government can't think of anything but beating up all the fathers because of those deadbeat dads that do exist. I think an alternative needs to be handed to them. I wnat to see change, for the betterment of the system and the people involved. I want to support my chioldren but a fair and reasonable amount. If the CP is not a contributing member of society I want them to suffer a little because they are not pulling their weight. I've worked hard all my life. When I found myself out of the technology field I worked at roadside assistance and lived in that diesel-gulping monster 18-20 hours a day for what amounted to minimum wage. I'm back in technology but I still see 22% of my income going to someone who doesn't want to work. I also see the judgement hanging on my wall that gives her a huge yearly bonus because I tried to have the amount adjusted to a reasonable amount, If I hadn't gone to court I would have continued to pay an amount that would be more like 40-50% of my Take-home-pay. I earned ~$7000 last year. I paid more than that to CS. You figure it out. So. Add your two cents. But let's find a better solution. Papa |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? Right now you have the fathers who are not responsible screwing it up for the fathers that are. The fathers that aren't responsible are whining really loud about how unfair it is that they pay for the life of a child they created. They haven't had involvement? Oh, so what you agree'd to being a father when you dropped trou' and had some fun. It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people deal with several broken systems. If a mother has a child and MoPo find the fathers Dad at age 7 and the woman didn't list the father, or didn't know which jerk was the father, then comes around to the reality of being broke at the child's age 6, then the system should not chase this guy for that first 5-6 years. If the system is designed properly the the mother should not be able to survive on one child's CS income alone. 4 or 5 maybe. I don't agree entirely with equalizing the houshold incomes so that the child has a similar lifestyle if the child never knew that lifestyle of if the lifestyle of the father is dropped to support a better lifestyle for mom because she happens to find a sugar-daddy boyfriend. Living somewhere for "free" or for an exceptional low rent might be considered income for her. I'm in this situation. My ex drives a new car, I have none; She lives in a huge house, I live in a small apartment; She's a Community Centre worker (by choice) after leaving a $75K job. I was out of work and hassled for the market's abundance of workforce for two years and when I tried to work the CS agency where I live took my licence and garnished my wages by more than 50% making my life miserable and making it's nearly too expensive to see my daughters. based on this extremely brief summary of the current system's design flaws for MY situation. I think change is necessary and if the government can't think of anything but beating up all the fathers because of those deadbeat dads that do exist. I think an alternative needs to be handed to them. I wnat to see change, for the betterment of the system and the people involved. I want to support my chioldren but a fair and reasonable amount. If the CP is not a contributing member of society I want them to suffer a little because they are not pulling their weight. I've worked hard all my life. When I found myself out of the technology field I worked at roadside assistance and lived in that diesel-gulping monster 18-20 hours a day for what amounted to minimum wage. I'm back in technology but I still see 22% of my income going to someone who doesn't want to work. I also see the judgement hanging on my wall that gives her a huge yearly bonus because I tried to have the amount adjusted to a reasonable amount, If I hadn't gone to court I would have continued to pay an amount that would be more like 40-50% of my Take-home-pay. I earned ~$7000 last year. I paid more than that to CS. You figure it out. So. Add your two cents. But let's find a better solution. Papa |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but if the technology allows it then yes. That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since. Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2 working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised, how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time? Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan makes me very nervous! Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his? Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility, there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle. And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages. the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the expenses are reasonable and justified. Do you really expect thast a social worker will be a "voice of reason"? We have social workers now. And Friends of the Court, and all sorts of people who aer supposed to be "voices of reason"! But they are a big part of thereason things have skewed so badly. We live in a different state than the child. Do you think that, if a social worker in her state repeatedly files reports saying that the child is living at a fairly impoverished level, and the social worker in our state reports that our children aer living at a middle class level, there won't be changes made? The CS that is paid id dufficient for school clothes--but if it is spent on school clothes for several, rather than just one, it may appear to a social worker looking ath the one child, that there was not enough money for school clothes, etc. Do you not think that the social workers will become spokesmen for thier particular case load? Do you think there will be no competition for the money that is brought in? As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1 penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for? (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no protections built in for the NCP. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but if the technology allows it then yes. That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since. Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2 working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised, how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time? Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan makes me very nervous! Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his? Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility, there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle. And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages. the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the expenses are reasonable and justified. Do you really expect thast a social worker will be a "voice of reason"? We have social workers now. And Friends of the Court, and all sorts of people who aer supposed to be "voices of reason"! But they are a big part of thereason things have skewed so badly. We live in a different state than the child. Do you think that, if a social worker in her state repeatedly files reports saying that the child is living at a fairly impoverished level, and the social worker in our state reports that our children aer living at a middle class level, there won't be changes made? The CS that is paid id dufficient for school clothes--but if it is spent on school clothes for several, rather than just one, it may appear to a social worker looking ath the one child, that there was not enough money for school clothes, etc. Do you not think that the social workers will become spokesmen for thier particular case load? Do you think there will be no competition for the money that is brought in? As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1 penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for? (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no protections built in for the NCP. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
PapaPolarbear wrote: To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? Yes keep the government out of my home unless they can prove that something is going on that shouldn't be (I mean they can prove in a court in front of a jury). Why? Kids already have been given more power than parents in the system in that allows them to simply imply that they may be unhappy at home in order to bring in CPS. It's hard enough being a parent with social workers believe that parents are not "trained" enough to parent (when in truth less than 10% of parents abuse their children physically, emotionally, or sexually). It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people deal with several broken systems. The government will never have a governmental "solution" that is non-governmental. It's not how political power is maintained and regardless of how idealistically you may veiw the government, the government only grows more powerfull over time never weaker. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
PapaPolarbear wrote: To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? Yes keep the government out of my home unless they can prove that something is going on that shouldn't be (I mean they can prove in a court in front of a jury). Why? Kids already have been given more power than parents in the system in that allows them to simply imply that they may be unhappy at home in order to bring in CPS. It's hard enough being a parent with social workers believe that parents are not "trained" enough to parent (when in truth less than 10% of parents abuse their children physically, emotionally, or sexually). It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people deal with several broken systems. The government will never have a governmental "solution" that is non-governmental. It's not how political power is maintained and regardless of how idealistically you may veiw the government, the government only grows more powerfull over time never weaker. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? You asked for "comments" and you got comments. Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas." The better ideas a Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children regardless of birth order equally, etc. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the remainder be returned to the parents? Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance. Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the children. Do you have a better idea? Does anyone? You asked for "comments" and you got comments. Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas." The better ideas a Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children regardless of birth order equally, etc. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1 penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for? (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no protections built in for the NCP. "Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?" It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over it. Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too. Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process? Papa |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Children REALLY React To Control | Chris | General | 444 | July 20th 04 07:14 PM |
Various MD crimes (obvious ones) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | May 17th 04 04:48 PM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 11:12 PM |
| Ex Giants player sentenced-DYFS wrkr no harm noticed | Kane | Foster Parents | 10 | September 16th 03 11:59 AM |