Child Support Lock Up

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:45:54 GMT, Sheila J wrote:

The child should go to the best parent and the other parent should
assist in the financial/emotional and social costs of raising a child.

Key word he ASSIST.

Paying $800 (soon to go up to $1,000) a month CS for ONE child is NOT
assisting. It's robbery plain and simple. You can't tell me it costs
that much to raise one child. That's assisting? I don't think so. It's
17% of gross income, but in reality it figures out to 26% of take-home
pay, right now and if it goes up as we are afraid it will after the
court date, it will be close to 32% of take home pay . It's grossly
unfair. Grossly.

The child will be 18 in three months...this is ludicrous at this
point, but it's *the law*. CS until the age on 21 in this fine (read
screwed up) state. The sad part is that Mom has incentive to convince
the daughter to stay at home and do *nothing* so the money will
continue to roll in as long as possible. It's a SCREWED UP system.
Totally. Kid wants OUT but has no funds. Dad can't help kid because
all the funds are going to the mother. See the picture??? Not a pretty
one.

Trust me, I am there. Hubby got a raise and voila! Back to court and
$300 more a month will probably be hers after the court date, unless
we can convince the judge otherwise. Of course the ex couldn't work
or anything...that would infringe upon her lifestyle. Oh me oh my no.

The child's standard of living hasn't changed in 10 yrs. Hubby on the
other hand, works hard, gets a raise, and has to hand it over to the
LFL (Loser for Life), with NO accounting and the kid's life doesn't
change one iota. Fair? NO! Hell, we have to budget for over 2 months
to be able to take the kid out to the movies. We are *that* strapped.

The ex is a GREEDY bitch pure and simple. The kid doesn't get the
benefit of *all* that money. Mom does. It's true whether you believe
it or not. And it is unfair. And it's "hidden alimony".

The interests of the child don't even enter the equation. If so, the
CP would be made to account for that money. Not the case though. If
so, the child would have a higher standard of living. Not so. She
still lives in the welfare flat walk-up with Mom and her boyfriend and
buys her clothes from the ***** rack* as she calls it. Mom, on the
other hand looks like a prom queen, all dolled up, new clothes, new
car, etc.

It's a joke.

Bobbi
************************************************** ***
Old Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
Peak Oil - coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
************************************************** ***

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:45:54 GMT, Sheila J wrote:

The child should go to the best parent and the other parent should
assist in the financial/emotional and social costs of raising a child.

Key word he ASSIST.

Paying $800 (soon to go up to $1,000) a month CS for ONE child is NOT
assisting. It's robbery plain and simple. You can't tell me it costs
that much to raise one child. That's assisting? I don't think so. It's
17% of gross income, but in reality it figures out to 26% of take-home
pay, right now and if it goes up as we are afraid it will after the
court date, it will be close to 32% of take home pay . It's grossly
unfair. Grossly.

The child will be 18 in three months...this is ludicrous at this
point, but it's *the law*. CS until the age on 21 in this fine (read
screwed up) state. The sad part is that Mom has incentive to convince
the daughter to stay at home and do *nothing* so the money will
continue to roll in as long as possible. It's a SCREWED UP system.
Totally. Kid wants OUT but has no funds. Dad can't help kid because
all the funds are going to the mother. See the picture??? Not a pretty
one.

Trust me, I am there. Hubby got a raise and voila! Back to court and
$300 more a month will probably be hers after the court date, unless
we can convince the judge otherwise. Of course the ex couldn't work
or anything...that would infringe upon her lifestyle. Oh me oh my no.

The child's standard of living hasn't changed in 10 yrs. Hubby on the
other hand, works hard, gets a raise, and has to hand it over to the
LFL (Loser for Life), with NO accounting and the kid's life doesn't
change one iota. Fair? NO! Hell, we have to budget for over 2 months
to be able to take the kid out to the movies. We are *that* strapped.

The ex is a GREEDY bitch pure and simple. The kid doesn't get the
benefit of *all* that money. Mom does. It's true whether you believe
it or not. And it is unfair. And it's "hidden alimony".

The interests of the child don't even enter the equation. If so, the
CP would be made to account for that money. Not the case though. If
so, the child would have a higher standard of living. Not so. She
still lives in the welfare flat walk-up with Mom and her boyfriend and
buys her clothes from the ***** rack* as she calls it. Mom, on the
other hand looks like a prom queen, all dolled up, new clothes, new
car, etc.

It's a joke.

Bobbi
************************************************** ***
Old Saudi saying: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car.
My son flies a jet airplane. His son will ride a camel."
Peak Oil - coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
************************************************** ***

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:cSP_b.609321$X%5.554735@pd7tw2no...

snip drivel

Sheila -

You are either obtuse or playing real hard to be obtuse. You flop back and
forth on positions and issues, have articles and text quoted to you and then
pretend in the next breath that they are not.

The only thing that you could possibly be is a troll, because no human being
could be this obtuse (well, besides Andre, who also happens to be in
academia if I recall, also in Canada? - ouch, that really says little about
the system).

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:cSP_b.609321$X%5.554735@pd7tw2no...

snip drivel

Sheila -

You are either obtuse or playing real hard to be obtuse. You flop back and
forth on positions and issues, have articles and text quoted to you and then
pretend in the next breath that they are not.

The only thing that you could possibly be is a troll, because no human being
could be this obtuse (well, besides Andre, who also happens to be in
academia if I recall, also in Canada? - ouch, that really says little about
the system).

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:m6L_b.612294$ts4.148296@pd7tw3no...
bobb wrote:

Hmmm... SIDS deaths are very suspicious. Too many have been proven to
be
murder. It's also very rare in other countries... and of late... it
seems
moms in the U.S. kill their children all too often... and in much
earlier
years if a child died or dissappeared.. parents were the last to be
suspected. I think the jury is still out on SIDS...

bobb




Actually my father just went to a 5 day conference on SIDS, To help
police officers deal more sensitively with SIDs parents and to help them
deal LESS suspiciously with them. One of the theories put forth was
that children dying was actually a product of nightmares. That the child
becomes so frightened they stop breathing and because they have no
context, they can't put it in perspective as a dream.

All SIDS deaths should be viewed as suspicious. The medical community is
divided. So far there is no common denominator. If they are viewed as
suspicious an answer may never be found. I'm also aware moms have been sent
to jail absent any proof the death was anything other than normal... and
that, too, is wrong. I'd rather see a guilty mom go free rather than an
innocent one.



But he also mentioned the age-old problem of 'lying-over'. Where a
parent accidently suffocates a child, without realizing it. In fact,
the day my brother was buried, a woman was burying her 2 year old for
that very reason.

Another suspicious death. I can hardly imagine, except in the rare
instance, a child of two years old can die that way. Others will argue the
other way.. but ... who is right?

bobb



Horrible to lose a child. I can't imagine how one
would handle it. It almost killed my father losing his son at 18 - hit
by a drunk driver.

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:m6L_b.612294$ts4.148296@pd7tw3no...
bobb wrote:

Hmmm... SIDS deaths are very suspicious. Too many have been proven to
be
murder. It's also very rare in other countries... and of late... it
seems
moms in the U.S. kill their children all too often... and in much
earlier
years if a child died or dissappeared.. parents were the last to be
suspected. I think the jury is still out on SIDS...

bobb




Actually my father just went to a 5 day conference on SIDS, To help
police officers deal more sensitively with SIDs parents and to help them
deal LESS suspiciously with them. One of the theories put forth was
that children dying was actually a product of nightmares. That the child
becomes so frightened they stop breathing and because they have no
context, they can't put it in perspective as a dream.

All SIDS deaths should be viewed as suspicious. The medical community is
divided. So far there is no common denominator. If they are viewed as
suspicious an answer may never be found. I'm also aware moms have been sent
to jail absent any proof the death was anything other than normal... and
that, too, is wrong. I'd rather see a guilty mom go free rather than an
innocent one.



But he also mentioned the age-old problem of 'lying-over'. Where a
parent accidently suffocates a child, without realizing it. In fact,
the day my brother was buried, a woman was burying her 2 year old for
that very reason.

Another suspicious death. I can hardly imagine, except in the rare
instance, a child of two years old can die that way. Others will argue the
other way.. but ... who is right?

bobb



Horrible to lose a child. I can't imagine how one
would handle it. It almost killed my father losing his son at 18 - hit
by a drunk driver.

But he also mentioned the age-old problem of 'lying-over'. Where a
parent accidently suffocates a child, without realizing it. In fact,
the day my brother was buried, a woman was burying her 2 year old for
that very reason.


Another suspicious death. I can hardly imagine, except in the rare
instance, a child of two years old can die that way. Others will argue the
other way.. but ... who is right?

Actually I said that very same thing. Especially given that most nights
our 2 year old crawls in with us, and then takes up 90% of the bed. But
when I asked my daddy he said that it was because of her weight. She was
quite a large lady, in excess of 350 pounds and that was the reason.

Police do view it suspiciously. The point of the conference, however,
was to try and sensitize them to the fact that in all cases, it might
not be suspicious. And to better assist them in coping with grieving
parents.

But he also mentioned the age-old problem of 'lying-over'. Where a
parent accidently suffocates a child, without realizing it. In fact,
the day my brother was buried, a woman was burying her 2 year old for
that very reason.


Another suspicious death. I can hardly imagine, except in the rare
instance, a child of two years old can die that way. Others will argue the
other way.. but ... who is right?

Actually I said that very same thing. Especially given that most nights
our 2 year old crawls in with us, and then takes up 90% of the bed. But
when I asked my daddy he said that it was because of her weight. She was
quite a large lady, in excess of 350 pounds and that was the reason.

Police do view it suspiciously. The point of the conference, however,
was to try and sensitize them to the fact that in all cases, it might
not be suspicious. And to better assist them in coping with grieving
parents.

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:cY1%b.613692$X%5.122068@pd7tw2no...
bobb wrote:



The guilt can be quite overwhelming at times, however.


I'm not so critical.. so long as the kids are tended to.. but I tire of
the
whiners who complain they have too much to do.... which is often nothing
more than a feeble excuse to neglect the kids in one fashion or another.

We do it because we love them.

We? As in all women? I think all too many woman see it as a duty.. not
love. The way some parents (men included) treat their kids... I doubt love
enters the picture... expect that such an expression is expected. To use
the venaculer of the day... it wouldn't be politically correct to say "I
don't love my children".

In each family their is a favorite child. But what about the least
favorite? The un-loved? I have yet to come across any study devoted the
child left out. First child, middle child, the baby of the family. Mom's
favorite. Dad's favorite... but nothing about the child who is not
accepted. Perhaps they are the ones in jail... anti-social...
non-conforming.. to get the attention they never received... or the ones
with the most troubling anger.








take it as a plus...

Are you sure...coz that would ruin the tone of this entire thread...
the-hang-Sheila-because-she-can-think thread......

Did I say Shelia can think?






That;s a start.. but how about 37.5%?? Heck, the courts don't even
recognize 5%!

I'll think about it. But now Jerry Springer is on and I must make it to
the couch with my bon-bons....


... and diamonds? Hehehe...


Sure...why not...covered in all my furs.
Actually I am very fortunate. My husband travels alot and knows that he
can't come back home without expensive gifts.

He can't? Are there consequences?

You would be amazed at what you can find in places like the Middle East
and Africa...

Don't forget the gold... hahaha. I been there, done that but I really
didn't find anything I wanted.

bobb


(Wow...I can just imagine the uproar over THAT statement......)

bobb

"Sheila J" wrote in message
news:cY1%b.613692$X%5.122068@pd7tw2no...
bobb wrote:



The guilt can be quite overwhelming at times, however.


I'm not so critical.. so long as the kids are tended to.. but I tire of
the
whiners who complain they have too much to do.... which is often nothing
more than a feeble excuse to neglect the kids in one fashion or another.

We do it because we love them.

We? As in all women? I think all too many woman see it as a duty.. not
love. The way some parents (men included) treat their kids... I doubt love
enters the picture... expect that such an expression is expected. To use
the venaculer of the day... it wouldn't be politically correct to say "I
don't love my children".

In each family their is a favorite child. But what about the least
favorite? The un-loved? I have yet to come across any study devoted the
child left out. First child, middle child, the baby of the family. Mom's
favorite. Dad's favorite... but nothing about the child who is not
accepted. Perhaps they are the ones in jail... anti-social...
non-conforming.. to get the attention they never received... or the ones
with the most troubling anger.








take it as a plus...

Are you sure...coz that would ruin the tone of this entire thread...
the-hang-Sheila-because-she-can-think thread......

Did I say Shelia can think?






That;s a start.. but how about 37.5%?? Heck, the courts don't even
recognize 5%!

I'll think about it. But now Jerry Springer is on and I must make it to
the couch with my bon-bons....


... and diamonds? Hehehe...


Sure...why not...covered in all my furs.
Actually I am very fortunate. My husband travels alot and knows that he
can't come back home without expensive gifts.

He can't? Are there consequences?

You would be amazed at what you can find in places like the Middle East
and Africa...

Don't forget the gold... hahaha. I been there, done that but I really
didn't find anything I wanted.

bobb


(Wow...I can just imagine the uproar over THAT statement......)

bobb