A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 3rd 03, 10:54 AM
PapaPolarbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 11:25 AM
PapaPolarbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 11:25 AM
PapaPolarbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 02:52 PM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 02:52 PM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 03:12 PM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 03:12 PM
Virginia
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 06:44 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 3rd 03, 06:44 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old September 4th 03, 01:26 AM
PapaPolarbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:12 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.