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
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Zimm raises valid problems about the mechanics of accountability for
"child support." They are valid problems, but they are not insoluble problems. Ways are found of solving them in other contexts. (For example, there are all kinds of accounting, and specifically tax, situations where it is necessary to keep records and make some kind of -- inevitably somewhat arbitrary -- decision about the proportion of overheads to be assigned to particular uses.) Where there's a will, there's a way. So why DON'T we have accountability for "child support." The answer is simple. The group that wants accountability consists of divorced and unmarried fathers. They are not a special interest group that politicians, judges, or bureaucrats have to pay any attention to. Having accountability would be a way of proving to fathers that the system does not discriminate against them. The price for accountability would have to be paid by mothers. That price would consist not only of the trouble of keeping rudimentary records about how they spend the money fathers have to pay them. In the longer term, the price potentially also could consist of the revisions that would result to "child support" guidelines when the degree of hidden alimony in current CS arrangements became abundantly clear. Why should mothers pay that price? Who cares about whether fathers think the system is fair or not? As in so many matters connected with CS and custody, the FIRST step is for fathers have to make themselves into a politically significant special interest group. Until that happens, there will be no change. The problems about accountability are not technical -- they're political. Zimm wrote: That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT). How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league? I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle. Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art! Zimm Simpledog wrote: I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS, then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue stream from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to 500 a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put 100 away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got wise, and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good parent, but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them? No. Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A 2 door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home. There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money on, while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance. "Test" wrote in message news So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to see where that money goes: - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2) - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court - new mini-van - new house - trips - other non-kid things And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day care, clothes, etc. Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. SS |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than "give this to your mother." Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases, as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money to the mother. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Kenneth S. wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than "give this to your mother." Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases, as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money to the mother. In my life, I've discovered that it isn't so much what you say, but how you say it. I would never tell my child that "I can't afford that". But I would have no problem letting them know that whatever mom can afford them, I afford them. IOW, a subtle way of telling them that I have contributed to everything mom and child have. My rationale is that, since the CS I pay is co-mingled with the her income, and since she has no requirement to show she contributed her assumed amount, or how any (mine and her's)of it is spent, a portion of every dollar she spends is attributable to me. That fact would bother the crap out of me. Failure to have to account for how CS received from the NCP is spent, means that every dollar the CP spends, is partly her money and partly the NCP's money. Which means that the NCP has helped pay for everything spent on the child, but also the total of everything the CP spent on herself, and everything she spent on the both of you. I wonder how a CP feels knowing that the NCP has helped pay for everything she spends. It would seem to me that a CP's self-esteem demands that the CP be able to distinguish between what she alone has paid for, and what we (CP and NCP) have jointly paid for. At the least, it seems that CPs should have the right to claim credit for what they are due. The current laws deny them the ability to claim their contribution. Geeze, CP's if you are receiving CS, Why do you resist accounting for how the CS received is spent. Your resistance, doesn't allow you to claim the credit due to you., doesn't allow you have the satisfaction of independence, etc. I don't get it! What is the satisfaction? Self-esteem, and all of the associated benefits, depends on one's ability to claim sole credit for their actions. Not accounting for how the CS they receive is spent, denies a CP the ability to claim sole credit, and consequently the deserved self-esteem, because any money they spend is commingled between the CP and NCP. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Bob Whiteside wrote: "Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than "give this to your mother." Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases, as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money to the mother. And that is why fathers have to teach their children the money mom's get from the state is really the father's money. The middleman money changers have removed the fathers from involvement in the support of their children. Fathers must teach their children what they pay and how much they pay, and to recognize the money in the envelope from the state CS program is really money the father provided. When mothers suggest fathers should never show their children how much they are providing in CS money I get irate! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. When my children ask for something that does not fit into our budget, I explain about our budget--housing, food, etc--and how much discretionary money is actually left at the end of each month. That way they can see for themselves that the desired item is not immediately available. (I don't go into great detail--just enough to give them the idea) Why can't the NCP dad just generally present his monthly budget to the kids, showing that there is just not enough left for the extras they desire? In the budget will be the CS amount, but it will be in with all the other obligations. And if they ask why he used to be able to, but now can't--he can show them. Mom doesn't have to be criticized at all--let the kids draw their own conclusions. I see no reason that CS should be some hush-hush thing between parents. It shouldn't be a baseball bat for one parent to pound the other with--but it shouldn't be some big secret, either. And Mom is just as free to sit the kids down and present her general budget (including CS) and demonstrate what they can and can't afford at her house. The kids shouldn't be in the middle, but they shouldn't be in the dark, either! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't afford that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents have to say it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no. That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play her games. I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad has to put a stop to the games. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message thlink.net... "Her Bank" wrote in message om... I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the stuff. I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make finances their business. So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I can't afford that?" No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't afford that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents have to say it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no. There are two possibilities where children ask their NCP dad's to buy things for them. One is where the child sees something and wants it on the spur of the moment. The second is when the CP mom tells the kids to ask their dad to buy something they want or need during their visitation time. Examples - Mom said there is a sale at the Coat Barn this weekend and to see if you can buy us new Winter coats since you make a lot more money than she does. Or - Mom doesn't have the money to buy us new soccer shoes right now. She said to see if you can buy us new shoes this weekend since you have enough money to get a new car you must have money to buy us shoes. Or - I need to get a present to take to the birthday party. Mom didn't have time to take me shopping. She said to have you spend $12-15. I kept track of all the extras items I bought and took the list to a modification hearing and asked for a CS credit. The judge told me all of those expenditures were "gifts" I bought voluntarily and I could not get credit for buying the items. So I told my ex if she wanted me to take the children shopping she needed to send over the money with them. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older, at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine, that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached to his head. And that is why fathers have to teach their children the money mom's get from the state is really the father's money. They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the "state". When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was doing what financially. I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good would that have been? SS |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|