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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
what a concept......... (reply to all)
"frazil" wrote That was not my point at all. The equal chance for an equal outcome does not guarantee that the result will actually be an equal outcome. How each parents manages their resources, and where they place their priorities, is up to them. Outcome is never guaranteed. The kids do have a reasonable expectation of relatively similar living conditions and educational and recreational opportunities with both parents. I think the key word here is "their" resources. Your proposal blurs that distinction. It seems under your proposal, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that your 50/50 division of resources would rob parents of the consequences of their individual choices made prior to their marriage. IOW, if a made choices in my life before I got married that results in my earning $75,000 per year and I have a child with someone that makes $25,000 per year, why should I have to give them $25,000 per year. Even the CS formula guidelines aren't that draconian. It is somewhat blurry because the entire situation has been blurred by the parental breakup to begin with. BECAUSE the two had kids together, they are, and will always be, a family, at least to some minimal degree. That may be not be a pleasant thoght to some. I know I certainly woudl prefer to never see my ex again, but reality is that we are forever inextriciably tied together because we had kids together. Strictly enforced, I do know that my idea would not be fair to high wage earners, but making a provision for that would be in order. Or, maybe instead of 50/50, a standard level for a decent living be established, and I don't mean merely the government's "poverty line". For example let's say a *decent* living in a particular area or state would be $30,000/yr. One person makes $75,000/yr and the other makes $25,000/yr. The person who makes more would pay the other $5,000/yr to get them up to a *decent* income level. In extreme low-income situations no money should change hands. I see it as enhancing the consequences of their actions, but that is a subjective opinion and I can see how one would see it the other way. Also, I don't think the kids have any expectations. Society, may have expectations of relatively similar living conditions and educational and recreational opportunities, but I don't think the kids do. But assuming they do, how does your system achieve that, considering that many middle income NCPs end up with a lower standard of living than middle income CPs under current guidelines that demand much less than the 50/50 split you advocate. Consciously, kids don't, but they do notice differences between homes and even their homes and their friend's homes. In an ideal world we can say government and society has no business in how kids are raised, but putting the genie back in the bottle is virtually impossible. My concept does nothing to guarantee equal standards of living. Again, outcome cannot be guaranteed or legislated. That's not the point. Opportunity is the point. I think the far better approach is to honestly determine how much it costs to raise a child, and base any CS obligation on that cost and the NCPs ability to pay. Technically, I agree with you 100%. "Cost" only should be split. But, how much does it "cost"? Ask 100,000 people and get 100,000 different answers. In an effort to be as fair as possible, I think you'd still end up with an average. Also, how do you judge "ability to pay"? In my own experience, granted this is just my experience, in the first 5 years post-divorce and paying CS, my standard of living was significantly below that of my ex, the CP. And I payed the guideline amount which is significantly less than what your 50/50 system would require of me. I would suspect that there's more to the story. Possibly your ex re-married someone with a good income? Did the guidline amounts leave you with less than her? Were you saddled with the majority of the bills to pay off while she got to start over? I agree with your goal of trying to minimize the disparity of living conditions between CP and NCP, but your system would result in greater disparity than the current system which typically only demands about 17 percent of income from the NCP. That is my goal. Just floating ideas to try and achieve it. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
what a concept......... (reply to all)
"frazil" wrote
I think it really sucks for the middle class. If you're rich you can afford a good attorney and afford whatever CS is required. If you're truly poor the courts can't, and won't, make you pay what you don't have. But if your in the middle, you most likely will get screwed to the wall. It really sucks to be rich enough not to qualified for free legal assistance, yet poor enough to not be able to afford what the guideline formula dictates. I plucked this out because I think it is a very telling statement, and very true. Not just in CS, but in the how the legal system deals with society, in general. Rich? You can afford whatever happens. Poor? Many things get done for you or waived, etc. Middle class? Forget it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
what a concept......... (reply to all)
"Tracy" wrote
Yes, and I wouldn't call the mother "decent" - nor does she care for her kids. Please read what I wrote. She ignores the older boys and only pays attention to the daughter (youngest child). The daughter is showing signs that she is in pain over this, but isn't talking right now. The mother is living with a man (and his mother) who does drugs, isn't working, plus this mother ran around warning other parents to keep their daughters away from him. That he was a danger to little girls and shouldn't be trusted. Now she is living with him - go figure! I wouldn't call her "decent", either. I strongly believe she should not receive custody of the children for two reasons. 1) her immoral behavior that destroyed the family (killed the kids emotionally), and 2) two of the three kids do not want to live with her. I don't believe in splitting up children. Therefore, they should remain with dad... that is where they want to be. In the case you present, I would agree. These kids are having more of a difficult time dealing with the fact that their mother left their father for a man she claimed was a monster, she smokes, she drinks heavily, she's out in left field, has done a total 180 degree turn, etc... I mean look at it this way - her own family has turned their backs on this woman for doing what she did, and she did not care how it impacted those children - her family - and even her own life. The kids are better off with their father until their mother can get her act together. This is a mother who doesn't want them. She walked away from them, but now is hinting at custody of just the daughter. I say 'no way'! I agree with Frazil, they're better off with the dad, period. I'll tell you what Dave... I'm dating the man right now. It is a 45 minutes drive to his home during good traffic, more than an hour during heavy traffic. The man has my attention. I don't drive that far for just anyone, and have stopped dating several others because he is that good of a man. His daughter kept hugging me and wanted to just spend time with an adult female talking. She wants a mother. Dad and I have "jokingly" spoke of moving in together. But I'll tell you right now... for the sake of those kids and that family, I'd step aside in a heart beat and wish that family well if dad came to me told me his ex came to her senses and he will take her back. At one time she wanted to "come home", but he told her 'no'. He doesn't trust her. How can he? She has changed dramatically. Anyways, his house (the one he built) is up for sale. Once it sales he is either moving up here or building another house on his mother's land. He's a hard working laborer, and those kids need a mother. They don't have a mother right now. Not really... I'd say they have a mother, but not a mom. Just a little wordplay I like to use. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
what a concept......... (reply to all)
"Tracy" wrote
I never meant to imply they would be better off with the mother. They are better off with their father. Once their mother gets her act together then *maybe* they could consider equal parenting time. But that time will never come! I met *her* father last night. He came out and told me *he* didn't divorce him... get the picture? Dad is selling his home. He is moving. The boys want nothing to do with their mother, and the daughter wants to stay with her father. Ok, I need a clarification here. Are you saying you met your boyfriend's ex-wife's father? And that he still maintains a positive relationship with your boyfriend? After my ex-wife and I split, I had a better relationship with her mother and brother than she did for about a year and a half. Now, they've all made amends, but I still get alomg with them just fine. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
what a concept......... (reply to all)
"The DaveŠ" wrote in message
s.com... "Tracy" wrote I never meant to imply they would be better off with the mother. They are better off with their father. Once their mother gets her act together then *maybe* they could consider equal parenting time. But that time will never come! I met *her* father last night. He came out and told me *he* didn't divorce him... get the picture? Dad is selling his home. He is moving. The boys want nothing to do with their mother, and the daughter wants to stay with her father. Ok, I need a clarification here. Are you saying you met your boyfriend's ex-wife's father? And that he still maintains a positive relationship with your boyfriend? Yes. Her family won't have anything to do with her. They can't believe she left my boyfriend - period. This is the story... after more than 21 years of marriage my boyfriend's [then] wife informs him she is in love with another man, but still "loves" him too. She had been having an affair with this other man for a few months. This other man is her Aunt's boyfriend! The other man is much younger than the Aunt, but much older than the wife. This other man is scum (per the wife's word), and all in the family would agree. My boyfriend is a hard working man who supported his family all those years. He is what most decent women want in a husband. He would never cheat on his wife, or anyone he is committed to. He doesn't lie. He's very honest. He has great morals and a loving heart. He's not controlling or abusive. His ex even stated to him, and some of the closest family members, that she does not deserve him. She calls herself a "rebel without a cause". She rebelled against everything that was right - including her family. Her family viewed him as their own because of his strong moral beliefs and how he treated her. They still do view him as family. He didn't break up that family. He did nothing to her to deserve what she did. I've met quite a few members of her family, and I'll be attending a wedding on July 4th with him. Someone in her family is getting married and we're going together. Afterwards we're going to catch some fireworks. We're planning on him meeting my family and me his direct family shortly. After my ex-wife and I split, I had a better relationship with her mother and brother than she did for about a year and a half. Now, they've all made amends, but I still get alomg with them just fine. I don't know if their closeness will last forever, but I can say my boyfriend is friends with her father. Not to mention there's a bond due to history... my boyfriend was a logger originally. So was her father, and others in her family. So there's this level of respect that can't be broken easily. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FAO Ericka (or anyone else who might know) - reply | hierophant | Pregnancy | 4 | March 30th 04 06:40 PM |
PPAC, vaccinations and chiro bouncer Bob (Bob Dubin, Diplomate, American Board of Chiropractic Censorship) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 1 | September 6th 03 08:55 PM |
A 2003 reply to Gastaldo's 1997 letter to MOTHERING... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 25th 03 05:53 PM |