"Child Support" money?

"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01, Jon says...

So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or take a
drink?

====
Well, how about if the NCP tells the judge he can't pay that much because
he
needs a drink and a lottery ticket?

EXCELLENT !

====

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the CP wants,
as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from others to
make
up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.

====
FYI. You are wrong. "Child support dollars can be spent on anything the CP
wants" as long as the children aren't starving. She can squander on time
payments just as easily as late payments.

Actually, she can spend it on anything that she desires even if her children
ARE starving........ LEGALLY !

===
===

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:sZDsb.251$6G3.28@fed1read06...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dave" dave@freedoms-door wrote in message
...

"Jon" wrote in message
news:Gvxsb.181492$HS4.1507961@attbi_s01...
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
drink?


Child support should not be used for anything other than for
supporting
the
child.

So I use the child support to support the children, and buy my lottery
ticket
with my own money.

Now........... how can you tell which dollar was which? They all look
the
same.

If you can afford the lottery ticket, then why do you need "child
support"
money?

I work 2 jobs, in order to be able to afford some of the extras - I would
think
that I'm permitted to spend even just a little of it on myself?

I agree, but it's irrelevant.

The child
support money is the children's father's contribution towards the cost of
raising them, since he does nothing for or with them on his own.

Correction: the "child support" money is FREE CASH paid to YOU by the father
(be it directly or indirectly) to be spent at your discretion..... LEGALLY
!






FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
wants,
as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal from
others
to
make
up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to pay.


Real nice, labeling all fathers as deadbeats.

With the number of comcast email accounts you are now using and the
level of
usenet abuse to this NG it is only a matter of time before your
account
is
suspended for TOS violation.


"Gini52" wrote in message
...
In article jPtsb.10$6G3.8@fed1read06, Chris says...

Family kourt forces a man to give "child support" cash to the
woman.
She
uses such proceeds to purchase lottery tickets, alcoholic
beverages,
cigarettes, gifts for her lover, and bon bons. How is this
"child
support"
money?
===
It's the "trickle down" effect--You know, "Reaganomics." In the
case
of
middle
income dads, the presumption is that if you give them (CPs) way
more
than
they
need, there is a greater chance that enough will "trickle down"
to
the
kids to
keep them from starving. Note: This does not include CS ordered
to
low
income
dads that does not meet the basic needs of the child or upper
income
dads
who
are not subject to CS guidelines.
===
===

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:ZdEsb.258$6G3.133@fed1read06...

"Jon" wrote in message
news:AjCsb.187030$e01.681443@attbi_s02...
What I am saying is this: The actual physical child support dollars
that
come in the form of a check from the Family Support Registry do not
have
to
be spent on the children if the custodial parent has already had to
take
the NCP's share out of their own income to pay direct and indirect
child
expenses for any given month. This is not rocket science.

If they've already paid for such expenses out of their own pocket, then
they
don't need the "child support" money, do they?

So they had to use an additional share of their own income to cover the
children's expenses - now they've got no money left to also cover their
own
expenses, since they were covering the NCP's share - what would you
suggest,
they hold off being able to eat dinner till next month?

Obviously, they ARE eating dinner; otherwise, they wouldn't be alive to pay
for ANY expense.



"The Dave©" wrote in message
...
Jon wrote:
So if you receive support you can never buy a lottery ticket or
take a
drink?

FYI. Child support "dollars" can be spent on anything the
CP
wants, as long as they have already had to beg, borrow or steal
from
others to make up the the deadbeat's share before he decided to
pay.

So, you admit that CS is really general income for the CP (read:
mother), and should be taxed accordingly?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:00:33 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



Untrue. You can provide food, clothing, etc. and not spend one thin dime.
However, that does NOT address the question. I understand the question to be
inquiring about the mandatory number of dollars intact families must spend.
So, the answer is?


How exactly can you do all that and not spend one dime? Stealing?
Please let me know because I sure would like to get in on that deal.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:39:50 -0500, "Paul Fritz"
wrote:




.....moonie is once again playing games.......since she is the one that is
determining what the childrens expenses are. Lifestyle support should NOT be
part of the CS equaltion. It is simply a gross violation of a person's basic
constitutional rights. The state has determined the amount required to
supply a child with their basic needs (foster care payments) Each parent
sould be responsible for half, and anything else should be up to the
individual parent's choosing......NOT at the whim of the CP like moonie.

=====
=====

Foster care payments are determined based on what money the govt has
alloted in its budget to be spent on Foster care. Its not necessarily
based on what the actual cost is to raise a child.

If there is a "budget cut" those amounts if foster care is one of the
programs that gets cut will be less.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:02:34 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:56:39 -0800, "Chris" wrote:



That ought to be left up to the parent to decide; dontcha think?


If a utopia exsisted, yes. It doesn't. Some parents are able to come
to reasonable agreements that work for them. Some parents are not
able to reach a reasonable agreement and must have a third party
intervene. Whether it be a mediator or judge.

And WHO'S the judge as to whether or not they need a judge? "Reasonable" is
a matter of opinion subject to the individual.


Usually one of the people in the parties. Our state has madatory
mediation requirements in all divorces (im not sure about the custody
and child support arrangements in which the parents were not married)
I think thats a good step because it forces people to sit down and try
and make a resonable agreement. Some mediations dont work out and
the court is the next step.

Who decides in any lawsuit if a judge is needed?

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:04:31 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:58:41 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


$2.50 here, $2.50 there. Nickels and dimes add up to dollars.

Yep they sure do. They just keep adding and adding on to the overall
expense to raising a child dont they?

Red herring.


They do. They do. Just like they add up for you they add up for the
other parent.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:07:53 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Fighting For Kids" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 20:54:44 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


I COULD be wrong, but I believe that you are legally entitled to a
receipt.


lol, you may be legally entitled but that doesnt mean you are going to
get one.

You are legally entitled to wake up tomorrow morning, but that doesn't mean
someone won't put a bullet in your head tonight. What's your point?

What's yours?

Chris ...
In most states, there is no accountability on how CS is spent. If your
child is not being taken care of properly, then you jump in with both
feet and make sure the money goes where it's supposed to.


nm

Gini52 wtote:

In article , Fighting For Kids
says...

On 12 Nov 2003 18:45:30 -0800, Gini52 wrote:


====
Yep. It comes from your percent share. (My proposal is, however, that only
the
amount over reasonable actual expenses should be subject to accounting.)
====
====


But what is a reasonable amount? Not one person here has agreed to any
amount proposed.
====
I have repeatedly suggested that a reasonable amount is commensurate with the
amount states pay for foster children. This includes regional COL variances.

How can one set amount for all children in the same geopgraphical area be
reasonable? Should Trump pay CS at the same rate as Joe Average who earns 40K?

In the same county you can have poverty level and millionares paying CS. Is it
really reasonable for a millionare to pay the same CS as the poverty level
person?

Should children that have been raised all of their lives stop getting the
creature comforts they have been getting because their parents divorce?

Of course the obligatory *the NCP can then contribute anything they want above
the base support* is expected. However the problem lies in that without being
forced to provide above foster care level of support some will choose to spend
on themselves, their new SO, or just about anything other than their child.

I happen to know someone that DOES save receipts and sends copies of every
receipt to her ex, as he kept bellyaching about how he paid too much. All it
has done is create more animosity between the two of them. He calls her and
questions why his kids can't eat plain hamburgers rather than chicken nuggets.
From what I have seen it just leads to nitpicking.

I do feel CPs should be responsible for showing how the CS is spent, that way
any nogoodnicks will have to straighten up. Overall I bet if all were required
to show where the CS money is going there would be a lot less of *I pay too
much* but a lot more critical comments that will virtually make no differance
at all in the end.

Mrs Indyguy
====
====