Fathers and Split Custody CS

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
AZ wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
GudGye11 wrote:

In article ,

(Indyguy1) writes:

Bingo. The point I have been making for years, as to why it is wrong
for
CS
to
stop at 18 in many cases, especially if they are are seeking some
sort
of
post
secondary education.

I respectfully disagree with that:

When a child is 18, he/she is an adult. Period. You can whine and
bitch
and
moan to the contrary, but it's the truth. At that point, kids who are
adults
can and do make life-altering decisions for themselves. And they
should.

Then the feds ought to treat those between 18 and 25 as independants,
because
they DON'T.
---------------
Yes the feds SHOULD treat adults as independents. Once you turn 18 you
are
an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

Really? It just isn't the Fed that won't look at 18 yr olds as adults, you
know. You also have the drinking age, insurance companies, and car rental
agencies that don't look at 18 as a fully cooked adult.
----------------------
They should look at 18 year olds as adults.
-------------------

---------------

Until a student turns 25 student aid is handed out based on what a
students
parents earn, with some really narrow exceptions that few 18-24 yr old
fall
under.

This is my MAIN reason for my wanting support of the post 18 group. If
the
feds
wouldn't set up an EFC (estimated family contribution) that basically
says
*you
as parents need to chip in this amount* I think I'd soften my feelings
regarding this.
---------------------
So if the 18 year old adults were treated as adults, seperate and
independant of their parents by the feds you would agree that 18 year
olds
are adults?

Nope, see above. Let's face it, a kid doesn't wake up on their 18th
birthday
and necessarily have all the skills, maturity and financial ability to
move out
and go it alone.
-------------------
By the time a kid is 18 (s)he can already have over two years of work
experience, could save the money they earned, could have a checking account
and even a credit card, (co-signed). At 18 a person should have enough
skills to keep their own place,(or share with roomates), cook their own
food, wash their own clothes, own and maintain their own car, pay their own
bills and get to work on time. What more is there? If someone at 18 can't
do these simple things then I don't see how 3 more years is going to make
much difference.
-----------------------
Sure some kids can do it, but to be honest with you I have 2
kids one 18 and one 21 and out of their huge circles of friends there is
only
one friend of theirs that is out on his own and he is 21.
---------------------
EVERYONE I knew when I was a teenager was chomping at the bit at 17,(upon
graduating from high school), to move out on their own. I had already
rented an apartment in a different city and was nearly all the way moved in
on my 18th birthday. At 19 I moved to LA. Unfortunately, then I was a
passenger in a car accident that left me in and out of concsiousness for a
year. That was bad. But as soon as I was able I picked up once more and
headed to Tucson to try my luck. Fast forward 20 years and my mom and I
bought a house together. Having it built to our specifications so we
wouldn't be tripping over each other. I had the cash for the down payment
and she had the credit history. It worked perfectly until she died in 1996.
---------------

---------------------

As a side note students of divorced parents actually can be sitting
much
prettier than children from intact families regarding federal aid. The
reason
being is that children with divorced parents only have to offer up one
or
the
other's income (along with the steps income when it applies) as
oppossed
to
both bio parents, and the student of divorced parents can pretty much
pick

whatever parents' income they want to use. So if one parent makes
signifigantly
less than the other parent they can use that parent's info and get much
more
federal aid,
------------------
When they consider the parent with significantly less income do they
count
the cs received as income?

Yes they do.

Or does she get to leave it out of the
calculations?

Nope but the kids of divorced parents don't have to use BOTH parents
incomes
just one.
------------------
Do they include the step-parents income? If they don't then that seems
unfair. What if the mom is a sahm with no income?
------------
------------------
as oppossed to students from intact families were both parents
incomes are considered.

They
can vote, they can legally enter in binding contracts, they can pick
up
and
leave and feel free to go wherever they want, they can join the armed
forces,
the Peace Corps, the French Foreign Legion.

They can't drink, they can't even rent a car, hell they can't even
drive a
car
rented by their parents untilt hey turn 21.
-----------------
The drinking age was raised to 21 not that many years ago here.

In my state it was always 21, except for a year or two when it was 18.

If they can
arbitrarily change things like that they can change them all to be 18.
It
should be 18 across the board.

I agree, but at 21 not 18.
----------------
Anyone who is unable to make it on their own at 18 isn't going to do much
better at 21. If a kid by 18 hasn't learned all the basic things like
laundry, cooking, balancing a budget, then unless their is a BIG change
where their parent(s) actually teach them how to and let them do these
things on their own, they are going to be no better off at 21.
-------------------
----------------

And going to college is an
option
for them, too. However, the college option isn't engraved in stone,
it's
not
a
given, and it's not an "absolute right" though some like Indyguy would
like
to
see it so. Since the college option isn't a given, it's not forced,
then
the
payment for such an "option" shouldn't be forced upon the parents,
either.
What about the responsibility of the adult child now? Indyguy's
opinion
is
that parents should be forced to pay for a child's college education.

Indyguy's opinion is as long as the feds say the parents should be
paying,
the
parents should be paying.
-------------------
Just because the feds say you should be paying then it's ok with you? I
can
see having to go along with it because that's the way things currently
are
but I don't have to be ok with it.

Am I ok with it? Oh NO I am not. We pay every penny for our kid's
educations.
Others' have kids in college for nothing or next to nothing, because of
what
mommy and/or daddy earn. I have a problem with that.

-----------------------

What
if
a child, whose parents are paying for his/her education, decides
second
semester junior year, that all of a sudden they don't wanna go to
school
anymore? Mom and Dad have just spent $60,000 for nearly three years
of
education. Does Junior owe that money back to Mom and Dad? Or are
Mom
and
Dad
just "out of luck" even though it was (the "adult") Junior's decision
to
both
enter and later leave college?

So I guess you feel no education is better than some?
---------------------
I feel an adult should find ways to pay for their own education. If this
'Junior' as mentioned above was to later show up at mommys door wanting
to
go back to school,(say 10, 15 years later), should she still be obligated
to
pay 'Juniors' way?

Nah, junior would then be over 24 and be able to get aid without using
mommy or
daddy's income for the basis of federal aid.
----------------
So this is less about maturity and more about the money then?
---------------

---------------------

Indyguy would say "Oh, poor Mom and Dad...but
that's too bad...Mom and Dad OWED that to Junior." BALONEY!!! Junior
is
an
adult, and if Junior has the right to make adult decisions like
entering
or
leaving college, then Junior should have to pay the costs of those
decisions.

Work on getting the feds to agree with ya.
-------------------
That's better than not really agreeing with the situation but saying you
do
because the feds say it's so.

Then get it changed. It does no one any good to just agre or disagree.
------------------
It does no good to say that because of the financial aid situation that
everyone should have to support their kids until their 21 or 24.
-----------------
---------------------



This is basically a micro-analysis of what is wrong with this country
today.
There is a basic disparity between rights and responsibilities.
People
clamor
about rights, but then tend to ignore the responsibilities that go
with
said rights. People who don't have the rights often have the
responsibilities
of
paying for someone ELSE'S decisions. That is inherently wrong.

The CS system says your an adult at 18 and the feds say not so when it
comes to
paying for your college education, you aren't truely emancipated from
your
parents purse strings unitl you are 25. Now *that* is inherently wrong,
wouldn't you agree?
---------------------
Yes that is wrong. But I don't think the answer is making more laws
requiring paying anything for any adult over 18.

I'm not talking about making any new laws. I say get rid of the EFC and
base
handing out federal aid on how well a kid does in high school. My kids
would be
getting a full ride if that was the case.
---------------------
I could reply, then get it changed, but I won't. I think you are right that
it should be more dependent on how well the kid has done to prepare themself
for college. Surely they have received scholarships and various grants to
help? My future dh went to college for a metallurgical engineering degree
and then for one in computers and artificial intelligence and applied for
and received tons of money not just to use for tuition and books but for
living expenses as well. And his dad is a surgeon.

~AZ~

Mrs Indyguy

~AZ~

Mrs Indyguy

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
AZ wrote:

"Indyguy1" wrote in message
...
GudGye11 wrote:

In article ,

(Indyguy1) writes:

Bingo. The point I have been making for years, as to why it is wrong
for
CS
to
stop at 18 in many cases, especially if they are are seeking some
sort
of
post
secondary education.

I respectfully disagree with that:

When a child is 18, he/she is an adult. Period. You can whine and
bitch
and
moan to the contrary, but it's the truth. At that point, kids who are
adults
can and do make life-altering decisions for themselves. And they
should.

Then the feds ought to treat those between 18 and 25 as independants,
because
they DON'T.
---------------
Yes the feds SHOULD treat adults as independents. Once you turn 18 you
are
an adult with all the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

Really? It just isn't the Fed that won't look at 18 yr olds as adults, you
know. You also have the drinking age, insurance companies, and car rental
agencies that don't look at 18 as a fully cooked adult.
----------------------
They should look at 18 year olds as adults.
-------------------

---------------

Until a student turns 25 student aid is handed out based on what a
students
parents earn, with some really narrow exceptions that few 18-24 yr old
fall
under.

This is my MAIN reason for my wanting support of the post 18 group. If
the
feds
wouldn't set up an EFC (estimated family contribution) that basically
says
*you
as parents need to chip in this amount* I think I'd soften my feelings
regarding this.
---------------------
So if the 18 year old adults were treated as adults, seperate and
independant of their parents by the feds you would agree that 18 year
olds
are adults?

Nope, see above. Let's face it, a kid doesn't wake up on their 18th
birthday
and necessarily have all the skills, maturity and financial ability to
move out
and go it alone.
-------------------
By the time a kid is 18 (s)he can already have over two years of work
experience, could save the money they earned, could have a checking account
and even a credit card, (co-signed). At 18 a person should have enough
skills to keep their own place,(or share with roomates), cook their own
food, wash their own clothes, own and maintain their own car, pay their own
bills and get to work on time. What more is there? If someone at 18 can't
do these simple things then I don't see how 3 more years is going to make
much difference.
-----------------------
Sure some kids can do it, but to be honest with you I have 2
kids one 18 and one 21 and out of their huge circles of friends there is
only
one friend of theirs that is out on his own and he is 21.
---------------------
EVERYONE I knew when I was a teenager was chomping at the bit at 17,(upon
graduating from high school), to move out on their own. I had already
rented an apartment in a different city and was nearly all the way moved in
on my 18th birthday. At 19 I moved to LA. Unfortunately, then I was a
passenger in a car accident that left me in and out of concsiousness for a
year. That was bad. But as soon as I was able I picked up once more and
headed to Tucson to try my luck. Fast forward 20 years and my mom and I
bought a house together. Having it built to our specifications so we
wouldn't be tripping over each other. I had the cash for the down payment
and she had the credit history. It worked perfectly until she died in 1996.
---------------

---------------------

As a side note students of divorced parents actually can be sitting
much
prettier than children from intact families regarding federal aid. The
reason
being is that children with divorced parents only have to offer up one
or
the
other's income (along with the steps income when it applies) as
oppossed
to
both bio parents, and the student of divorced parents can pretty much
pick

whatever parents' income they want to use. So if one parent makes
signifigantly
less than the other parent they can use that parent's info and get much
more
federal aid,
------------------
When they consider the parent with significantly less income do they
count
the cs received as income?

Yes they do.

Or does she get to leave it out of the
calculations?

Nope but the kids of divorced parents don't have to use BOTH parents
incomes
just one.
------------------
Do they include the step-parents income? If they don't then that seems
unfair. What if the mom is a sahm with no income?
------------
------------------
as oppossed to students from intact families were both parents
incomes are considered.

They
can vote, they can legally enter in binding contracts, they can pick
up
and
leave and feel free to go wherever they want, they can join the armed
forces,
the Peace Corps, the French Foreign Legion.

They can't drink, they can't even rent a car, hell they can't even
drive a
car
rented by their parents untilt hey turn 21.
-----------------
The drinking age was raised to 21 not that many years ago here.

In my state it was always 21, except for a year or two when it was 18.

If they can
arbitrarily change things like that they can change them all to be 18.
It
should be 18 across the board.

I agree, but at 21 not 18.
----------------
Anyone who is unable to make it on their own at 18 isn't going to do much
better at 21. If a kid by 18 hasn't learned all the basic things like
laundry, cooking, balancing a budget, then unless their is a BIG change
where their parent(s) actually teach them how to and let them do these
things on their own, they are going to be no better off at 21.
-------------------
----------------

And going to college is an
option
for them, too. However, the college option isn't engraved in stone,
it's
not
a
given, and it's not an "absolute right" though some like Indyguy would
like
to
see it so. Since the college option isn't a given, it's not forced,
then
the
payment for such an "option" shouldn't be forced upon the parents,
either.
What about the responsibility of the adult child now? Indyguy's
opinion
is
that parents should be forced to pay for a child's college education.

Indyguy's opinion is as long as the feds say the parents should be
paying,
the
parents should be paying.
-------------------
Just because the feds say you should be paying then it's ok with you? I
can
see having to go along with it because that's the way things currently
are
but I don't have to be ok with it.

Am I ok with it? Oh NO I am not. We pay every penny for our kid's
educations.
Others' have kids in college for nothing or next to nothing, because of
what
mommy and/or daddy earn. I have a problem with that.

-----------------------

What
if
a child, whose parents are paying for his/her education, decides
second
semester junior year, that all of a sudden they don't wanna go to
school
anymore? Mom and Dad have just spent $60,000 for nearly three years
of
education. Does Junior owe that money back to Mom and Dad? Or are
Mom
and
Dad
just "out of luck" even though it was (the "adult") Junior's decision
to
both
enter and later leave college?

So I guess you feel no education is better than some?
---------------------
I feel an adult should find ways to pay for their own education. If this
'Junior' as mentioned above was to later show up at mommys door wanting
to
go back to school,(say 10, 15 years later), should she still be obligated
to
pay 'Juniors' way?

Nah, junior would then be over 24 and be able to get aid without using
mommy or
daddy's income for the basis of federal aid.
----------------
So this is less about maturity and more about the money then?
---------------

---------------------

Indyguy would say "Oh, poor Mom and Dad...but
that's too bad...Mom and Dad OWED that to Junior." BALONEY!!! Junior
is
an
adult, and if Junior has the right to make adult decisions like
entering
or
leaving college, then Junior should have to pay the costs of those
decisions.

Work on getting the feds to agree with ya.
-------------------
That's better than not really agreeing with the situation but saying you
do
because the feds say it's so.

Then get it changed. It does no one any good to just agre or disagree.
------------------
It does no good to say that because of the financial aid situation that
everyone should have to support their kids until their 21 or 24.
-----------------
---------------------



This is basically a micro-analysis of what is wrong with this country
today.
There is a basic disparity between rights and responsibilities.
People
clamor
about rights, but then tend to ignore the responsibilities that go
with
said rights. People who don't have the rights often have the
responsibilities
of
paying for someone ELSE'S decisions. That is inherently wrong.

The CS system says your an adult at 18 and the feds say not so when it
comes to
paying for your college education, you aren't truely emancipated from
your
parents purse strings unitl you are 25. Now *that* is inherently wrong,
wouldn't you agree?
---------------------
Yes that is wrong. But I don't think the answer is making more laws
requiring paying anything for any adult over 18.

I'm not talking about making any new laws. I say get rid of the EFC and
base
handing out federal aid on how well a kid does in high school. My kids
would be
getting a full ride if that was the case.
---------------------
I could reply, then get it changed, but I won't. I think you are right that
it should be more dependent on how well the kid has done to prepare themself
for college. Surely they have received scholarships and various grants to
help? My future dh went to college for a metallurgical engineering degree
and then for one in computers and artificial intelligence and applied for
and received tons of money not just to use for tuition and books but for
living expenses as well. And his dad is a surgeon.

~AZ~

Mrs Indyguy

~AZ~

Mrs Indyguy