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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

"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!

"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!

"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.

"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.

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