Does anybody have any useful advice on how to collect a child support debt?

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:32:41 -0800, "teachrmama"
wrote:


"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 3:39 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...

In article , teachrmama says...

snip for length

snip again for length

School uniforms in March,

remember.

That was *one* parent--and you have extrapolated it across every NCP that
breates air. That is hardly fair.

But that is exactly what you are doing to CPs; is it not?

Not me. I talk about the system. The system iw wrong, Paula. Not you, for
wanting to do what is best for your child. Have I ever criticized your,
personally? It is the system that is out of balance, and needs to be
brought into balance.I have repeatedly said that the vast majority of CPs
and NCPs are caring, decent people.

I don't know that I'd agree with your percentages if you're talking
about only those who are already in the system, but we do agree that
there are decent, caring, responsible CPs and NCPs caught up in it.


A custodial parent woudl be doing bare basics only if that's all they

could truly provide because he or she woudl be dealing with and seeing
the
results of only doing that daily. Ah! You just told me above that,
when
it's
determined that that's all the NCP can truly provide, that's all that's
required!

If that is all that the parents can provide, then that is all they can
provide--what is so "ah!" about that?

How well and happily - I think your statement about that rather

broad, to say the very least. But, my reckoning, there's your precious
equality. (Remember too, the CP is doing all the WORK - that's not to
be
directly compensated, but that's not to be forgotten either.)

Sorry--being a parent is not compensible--it is a choice. If she doesn't
want to "do all the work" of being a parent, she should request shared
custody. Nobody should expect to be paid for being a parent.

And there are many NCPs who are NCP's by choice ... so don't
act like a "request" for shared custody is the be-all-end-all answer,
because it isn't.

*Nothing* will ever be the be-all-end-all, Paula. That is simply not
possible to find. However, if the system were removed from the lives of all
the decent, caring ex-couples, and they were permitted to work things out
their own way -ir- if the system were minimally involved with those who just
needed some help over the rough spots, and if the system would concentrate
only on those who could not or would not be *real parents* to their
children, maybe we would not see the terrible biases we see today. A
one-size-fits-all system is *never* going to be the answer.

Exactly! It would take legislative change to get to a more tiered
system capable of handling different levels of vigorousness. But ...

Has anyone ever tried to get a PR campaign targeted within the
bureaucracies putting faces and stories to the NCPs and their families
that end up involved with the system for reasons *other than* being
intentionally avoidant of providing support to their child(ren)?
Essentially constantly reminding them that they are dealing with
people's lives and that 'deadbeat' is a *very specific* term that
doesn't apply to all NCPs?

It seems a bit simple and almost silly, but sometimes those are the
ideas that create the most movement. I would think that both CPs and
NCPs could be found to support such an attempt toward change. shrug


Still, sorry, but I don't see this as a "right". It's a funny right to
fight
for - - "my right to only provide the bare phsycial needs of my child".

There you go again with the "bare" adjective. Basics and bare needs are
not
the same. That just emotional whipped cream to build up your side of the
discussion.

And saying it over and over again, doens't make it so!

With responsibility, comes discretion.

Absolutely correct!! Give the NCP the opportunity to be responsible,
and
I
am sure that you will find that he will be equal to the task. Enough
of
this struggling heroine CP vs evil NCP nonsense!!

THAT, I think, is the way to frame with question. Instead of this
"classes of
parents equal" business. They're because they're NOT.

Of course they are. In different situations, but still, parents are
parents, and have the same legal requirements to provide the basics for
their children.

That statement is a load of BS. A NCP can go months without
seeing or speaking to the child. A CP taking the same action would
result in the removal of the child. A NCP doesn't come anywhere
near having the same legal requirements and responsibilities that
CPs do.

*Seeing* the child and providing the legally mandated needs of the child are
not the same thing. You must be dealing with some lollapaloozer of an ex,
Paula. That must be really ahard on your child. But, no matter how you
look at it, *all* parents are required by law to make sure the basic needs
of their children are met.

Children have a basic need to know and develop a bond with their
parents. Children who are denied that bond suffer emotional and
psychological consequences. That need is not covered by law.

Nor do I think it could be, which makes the statements no less true.

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob
Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.


I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty


Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.


Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty

In article ,
Paula says...

You're children should have *always* been relevant. That's
one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL
shouldn't be imbalanced" ... while I may have only specifically
mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children
are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis'
doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis'
and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around
with her new iPod.

"SOL"?

Banty ("**** outta luck" didnt' seem to fit...)

On 18 Nov 2007 06:30:44 -0800, Banty wrote:

In article ,
Paula says...

You're children should have *always* been relevant. That's
one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL
shouldn't be imbalanced" ... while I may have only specifically
mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children
are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis'
doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis'
and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around
with her new iPod.

"SOL"?

Banty ("**** outta luck" didnt' seem to fit...)

Standard of Living

Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob
Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.

I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.


Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty


I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state
and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.

--

Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you
while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole
wide world")

On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional, psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a substitute for
parental attention.


It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
left alone by the system. But when one or both just
*cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
can be enforced by the court.

My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents?

For what purpose ... "just because". No.

Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?

Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
getting to the child(ren).

And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a
child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are women
given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when
they
initiate divorce 85% of the time?

I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother
is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my
parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish
that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged
their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and
recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart.

Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise women
break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like they
felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or they
needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the role of
fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be.

And men do the same thing ... either the man or the
woman can choose to up and walk away from the
family.

Why are the fathers who are kicked out of
their children's lives over their objections held responsible to repair
the
issues created by the mothers?

They're not. Both parents are equally responsible as long as
they stay in the mix and put the kids needs *first* above their own.

So when women put their own feelings ahead of the relationship how are men
supposed to understand their desires and react?

Again, this issue is not gender specific.

In article , Sarah Gray says...

Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob
Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for how CS
is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the same
thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume they
won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out of
family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's private
lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel what it
is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game - To
give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly. But
that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands have
been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The advocates
for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making decisions
on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child. The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS into
the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is getting
the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting the
benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party rule
on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or Dad #2
has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at one
time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one on
the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the child,
but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How would it
be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in the
same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of the
CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single person."
The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely costly
to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said "immediately".)
Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife is
stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like drift
away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever go to
court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept what is
offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long and futile.
It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a small shift in the
tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody will
cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the results are
most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to pay your wife's
legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If you ever intend to get
remarried you are better off not having custody of children. Divorced men
without custody of children statistically have a greater rate of remarriage
than divorced men with custody of children.

I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.


Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty


I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state
and now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.


OK...what if. You decided to to something else in your 50% of the time, too?

Banty

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
et...
Banty wrote:
In article , Sarah Gray says...
Banty wrote:
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Paula says...
On Nov 15, 11:31 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message

...





In article , teachrmama says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Bob
Whiteside
says...
"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article
, Bob
Whiteside
says...
Then we basically agree. How would you implement it,
though?
Define "child support." Create specific criteria for
how CS is to
be
spent.
Require periodic disclosure of expenses paid. Do the
same thing
to
CP
mothers they do to NCP dads - presume they are guilty of
misappropriation
of
the funds and make them prove otherwise. IOW - Assume
they won't
spend
the
money as intended and force them to rebut the assumption
by
showing
they
spent it correctly.
Hmm, I mean who and how and how is it going to be paid
for?
Seems you're more motivated by doing unto 'them' what was
done to
'us'
than
actually seeing that the kids get the benefit...
Nope. I am more for getting the government completely out
of family
decisions. The intrusion by government into people's
private lives
has
become a real crisis. I personally fear it because to me
it is
social
engineering run amok.
So you're *not* for CS at all.
They do it under the guise of their actions being in the
best
interest
of
the children, but in reality everything they do is in the
best
interest
of
the government. Until the "other side" starts to feel
what it is
like
to
get similar treatment to what they advocate for fathers to
receive I
don't
see any change occurring. You see it is a zero sum game -
To give
rights
to
fathers the government has to take rights away from
mothers.
Actually I don't. I see that increasingly *either* fathers
and
mothers
take
either role (as it's not a zero sum game), and advocate for
*both*
having
some
physical custody, which is also happening increasingly.
But that
won't
'stick
it to' anyone to make a point to your satisfaction, it
seems.
As you may
have notice in this newsgroup, many of the father's rights
advocates
are
second wives who have lived through how their husbands
have been
mistreated,
or children of fathers who got bad treatment. The
advocates for the
status
quo are always the people who benefit from the unfairness
inherent
in
the
current system.
Who might have something of a vested interest in smaller CS
payments.
Who also might have some vested interest in equity.
That's best determined by a third party, not the two parties
with
conflicting
interests.
So let me challenge your theory on third parties making
decisions on
conflicting interests. A mother has two children with
different
fathers.
Father #1 is ordered to pay her $800 per month to support his
child.
Father
#2 is ordered to pay her $200 per month to support his child.
The
mother
gets $1000 per month in CS. If the mother co-mingles the CS
into the
household budget she spends $500 per child. Child #1 is
getting the
benefit
of $300 less than the court ordered CS. Child #2 is getting
the benefit
of
$300 more than the court ordered CS. How should a third party
rule on
how
the CS is being spent and what should be done about it?
Well, I dont' know *why* the payments are so different. Say -
maybe
it's
to
avoid the "Welfare queeen" "CS queen thing" And some judge
decided
two
girls, different fathers or no, can go into one bedroom. Or
Dad #2 has
a
much
lower earning capacity.
Inevitably, the expenses would co-mingle. Dinner get made at
one time;
Mom
woudln't take two girls to the zoo and only take the older one
on the
rides.
And the girls would be sisters to each other.
What, would you think it's like a dog kennel, where I can get a
bigger
pen
for
my dog if I pay more?
So child support isn't really paid for the wellbeing of the
child, but for
the operating expenses of the household?
How can you separate them? Think of your own two kids! How
would it be
to
raise one one way; the other the other way. Just having them in
the same
place
and sitting at the same dinner table would account for much of
the CS.
Like we have been talking about, the operating expenses of the
household
are
counted as far as *additional* expenses are necessary to set up a
household to
raise the kids in. Vs. the less expensive and wider options
available to
a
single person.
You arestill laboring under the idea that the NCP is a "single
person." The
NCP needs the same # of bedrooms as the CP--for the exact same
children. He
needs supplies for those children when they are with him. He
needs
furniture for them when they are with him. He is NOT living as a
single
person--that is such an odd idea.
And what of those fathers who choose (no, I'm not speaking
of those who are driven away, and, yes, that does occur just
not in all situations as is assumed most of the time in here)
Yes, it can be made impossible to stay in a household, and hugely
costly to set
up immmediately to share the childrearing. (Note I said
"immediately".) Yes, it
happens. (And I suspect you're right about it not as frequently as
assumed in
here..)

But the father doesn't go *far* away. And I don't think evul wife
is stalking
him, preventing him from looking at houses or apartments to rent.

to NEVER have the child(ren) with him? What of those who
just walk away?
More often that just walking away (at least IME), it's more like
drift away - a
mental resignation of custody to the other parent before they ever
go to court
because they're feeling overwhelmed by thinking of what real changes
they'd need
to make, or they're thinking all-or-nothing full custody or forget
it and
they're advised that ain't gonna happen.
And they have probably already been told by their lawyer to accept
what is offered, because the fight for custody will probably be long
and futile. It is only recently that we are beginning to see even a
small shift in the tradition of maternal custody.
Here is the legal advice I got in the mid-80's - Fighting for custody
will cost you at least another $12,000-15,000 in legal fees and the
results are most likely to go against you. You may also be ordered to
pay your wife's legal fee to fight your attempts to get custody. If
you ever intend to get remarried you are better off not having custody
of children. Divorced men without custody of children statistically
have a greater rate of remarriage than divorced men with custody of
children.
I'm talking about why I'm seeing a lot of fathers not setting up for
JOINT
physical custody. One of the reasons, BTW, being an all-or-nothing
full-custody
or forget it attitude. in a state where joint physical custody is
common.

You're talking about what they told you about full custody, right?

(And you would decide to leave your kids not with you to increase your
marriage
chances??)

Banty

Banty, even if a father wants joint custody, usually, they would have to
fight for it in court. Because many, many women are not willing to trade
less child support for more time that their children spend with their
father. When my ex filed for divorce, he was asking for full custody of
our daughter. I countered with a request for joint custody, and the
referee (judge's assistant of sorts) was FLOORED that I was not asking
for full in return.


Oh, I believe that. I *more* than believe that! Mind: that I disagree
strongly
on certain important points does NOT mean I don't see the system having
some
pretty perverse incentives in it for that sort of thing.

But - how is it going with the request for joint custody?

Banty


I got joint custody. Parenting time was 50/50. Ex then left the state and
now he balks at paying a minimal amount of child support. Go figure.

--

Sarah Gray (benefit of being a CP #1: child playing "bongo head" on you
while you type while she sings :"you're my favorite mama in the whole wide
world")

One of those wonderful perks of paernthood that I wouldn't want to give up
for all the money in the world!! =c)

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 9:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 17, 2:54 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Paula - You usually have some good perspectives on issues but I have
to
challenge what you are saying here. First you said there were "costs"
associated with emotional, psychological, and spiritual child rearing
and
you related it to CS needing to be provided to cover those costs. Now
it
seems you are backing off of your original comment and referring to
those
factors as being "aspects" of child rearing. Which is it?

I don't see a conflict in my comments/perspective. There are
emotional, psychological, spiritual, and physical aspects to
child development. Nurturing said development entails some
cost ... soccer lessons, school trips, church group trips, band
uniforms, Tae Kwon Do lessons, etc.

I agree with the comments about child development being a priority and a
child's need for both parents to be involved in their lives is a key to
raising healthy children. What I don't agree with is the assumption
paying
money will fix any child development issues and improve a child's
development. I don't accept the premise providing money is a substitute
for
parental attention.


It's not. As I've said before, I'm all for parents figuring
things out by themselves, sharing custody, and being
left alone by the system. But when one or both just
*cannot* see past themselves for the sake of the
child(ren), finance seems to be the *only* thing that
can be enforced by the court.

Now we get down to the nitty gritty of the problem. IF both are cooperative
and want to works things out, they should be left alone by the court.
However, it is much more difficult to be cooperative when you know that,
just by being uncooperative and letting the court step in, you will get much
more than even you are asking for. Just as an example (not real figures)
let's say dad is willing to pay $500 per month and have the children 40% of
the time. Mom wants $650 per month and also will permit him 40% of the
time. The system will give her $950 per month and only let him have the
kids the standard 25% of the time. She won't budge on her $650 because she
*knows* that she can get $950 just by being stubborn. Is that really an
incentive-free arena of cooperation that has been set up?


My experience is none of the child rearing models come close to
expanding
the costs of rearing children beyond the basic needs of housing, food,
transportation, clothes, education, healthcare, and miscellaneous
expenditures.

I don't know much of what the models are based upon ... only my
opinion of what's right for the child(ren) and what the system should
address.

Well let me challenge that statement too. Should the "system" award
extra
money to CP's so they can be better parents?

For what purpose ... "just because". No.

Does increasing the amount of
CS received help a parent to do their job better?

Can I rephrase that as "Can money allow parenting
to be more effective?" Yes, when the money is actually
getting to the child(ren).

Really? So children reared in middle income homes are less able to deal
with the world as adults than children raised in wealthy homes? And
children raised among the working poor are even less able to cope in thereal
world when they are adults? Hmmmm.....


And if, as you suggested, parents are responsible for providing for a
child's emotional, psychological, and spiritual upbringing, why are
women
given a free pass for disrupting those child development factors when
they
initiate divorce 85% of the time?

I'd venture to guess that some of that 85% of the time, the mother
is doing the child(ren) a favor by breaking up the household ... my
parents stayed together "for my sake" and, looking back, I wish
that they hadn't. I'd have been better off had they acknowledged
their issues and been more forward in dealing with them ... and
recognizing that they (and I) were better with them apart.

Could be but the social science research seems to support the premise
women
break up marriages and relationships for loosey goosey reasons like they
felt like they were growing apart or they needed to find themselves or
they
needed a change. None pof those reason have anything to do with the role
of
fathers. other than how women perceive the father role to be.

And men do the same thing ... either the man or the
woman can choose to up and walk away from the
family.

Bob's point was that women are the ones most likely to use these excuses to
break up a marriage--not that men never do.

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 17, 8:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...





On Nov 17, 3:25 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

...

On Nov 17, 12:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message

snip

Do you feel that a parent who only wants to pay for the basic
necessities
of
life should be permitted to do that?

If parent1 provides a full life for the children in their 50/50
physical custody
agreement, they should be able to pay co-parent1 minimal if any
CS.
Else,
no. The only other exception to a
reasonable-but-more-than-basics
CS
is
poverty.

What? You feel that having the necessities of life is poverty? I
lived
for
years in a poverty community--I can tell you that basics and
poverty
are
2
totally different things!!

Having *only* the basic necessities of life is close enough to
poverty
to be the same to me.

I think that if you had actually lived in poverty, you might not be
saying
that. Even during the most difficult times getting back on our feet
after
being kicked to the ground with the CS order, even when we had perhaps
$2.00
left at the end of the month, and prayed we had enough gas to get to
work
to
pick up a paycheck, I knew we were not in poverty--just struggling to
make
ends meet, like thousands do every day. I would not even want to see
a
CS
order that would leave families in that position--but I think that
including
enough for alll the "extras" is wrong, too.

Or do you feel that a parent should be
forced to provide more than basics (and I'm not talking poverty
level)?
If
so, which parents should be forced to provide more than basics,
and
which
ones can decide to provide only basics?

Intact families would be the only ones that can decide to provide
only
basics and only because it *would* be an intrusion of the state
for
it
to step into the intact family. Parents who are split who can't
figure
this stuff out for themselves *need* the intervention of the
state
to
ensure the interests of the child(ren).

Ah--now I see. You suscribe to the "idiot adults need the help of
Big
Daddy
Government to survive" theory!! Please describe in sufficient
detail
your
notion of "best interests of the children." I think this will be
interesting.

Whose definition of sufficient detail are we using here?

I've already stated that there are physical, emotional,
psychological,
and spiritual aspects of child development that are at risk in these
contentious situations. Being ever mindful of that spectrum of need
within the child(ren) and holding those needs with priority is the
"best interests of the children."

Define "best interests of the children." That is the umbrella under
which
the CS system does all that it does right now--but there is NO
difinition--it's an excuse parading as a reason.

The 'basics' to which you refer consider only physical needs.
There
is
sooo much more to raising a child than that, and there are costs
that
come with nurturing the emotional, psychological, spiritual
child.
If
parent1 does not provide for those needs, ex-parent1 has
additional
costs to be covered within CS.

Really? What would those needs be? Giving them the Playstation
(or
skates,
or bike, or new trumpet for the band) they had been begging for and
watching
their eyes light up when they opened the box, feeling their hug of
gratitude, and watching them joyously experiment with their new
toy?
(NCPs
don't need to bond with their children that way. They just need to
send
$$$ ) Signing them up for T-Ball, and watching them take their
first
steps
toward the "sports hero dreams," and smiling as they run around the
field
high-fiving their friends? (NCPs do't need to experience that
joy--they
just need to send money) Right?

That's not what I said at all, and you know it. If a parent wants
to
maintain that connection they should be allowed to, and if the other
parent interferes that should result in a change of custody.

But if the CP has all the money for such expenses sent to her each
month,
WHAT does the NCP use to pay for such things?

BUT I agree with the logic behind the case that Gini posted. The
child's
standard of living should not be imbalanced in favor of child
over
parent at
parent's expense. And I know that happens; we don't disagree
that
the system is broken. We just disagree regarding how to go about
fixing it.

How would YOU fix it?

I wouldn't do it by yanking the rug out from under the many,
many children who are dependent upon this broken system.

Oh, so we are back to NCPs not being important enough to consider and
subsequent children being less important than first children.

And we're back to the word twisting ... wasn't it you who tried to
say that doesn't happen much around here?

I'm not twisting your words at all, Paula. You don't want to change the
way
things are for fear of "pulling the rug out from under" the children that
the system sees as important.

That is NOT what I said at all ... again with the word-twisting,
emotion-inducing prose.

There are children who are *dependent* upon the current
system. Any changes that are being discussed should be
looked at particularly from their perspective because they
would be *most* affected by change to the system.

Oaula, please focus in on what I am actually saying--don't let your
protectiveness of your child get in the way. NO CHILD WOULD BE PUT IN A
POSITION WHERE THEIR NEED WERE NOT MET. No child would be reduced to
scrabbling at poverty level. But *a guarantee of a certain lifestyle* at
the expense of someone else would be taken off the table.


You cannot even begin to see that there are
children that the system does not see as important--that the system
considers irrelevant--who do not even have a rug to pulled out from under
them! When do these children get some consideration? When do *my*
chidren
become relevant, and deserving of a rug?

You're children should have *always* been relevant.

NO to the system, Paula. They are NOT relevant to the system. Only their
older half sister is. We though for a while that I was going to have to
work 2 jobs just to make ends meet. It would have had to be me, because if
my husband got a second job, his CS would have been increased--and they
could have taken 50% of his second paycheck!! To the system, my children DO
NOT EXIST!!!!! And the other child's mother doesn't even have to work.

That's
one thing upon which we agree. This falls into my "SOL
shouldn't be imbalanced" ...

but it is, Paula. That's why it needs to change. And in order for my
children to have their needs considered, their older sister will have to get
less. Is that "pulling the rug out from under" her? (Just so you'll know,
if we were talking f2f you would see that I am not saying this angrily--just
passionately. I really want you to see that my perspective is to find a
balance in this system that is not there now )

while I may have only specifically
mentioned the parent, I believe that subsequent children
are included in that parent's household ... meaning big sis'
doesn't get a huge chunk of NCP's income causing lil sis'
and bro' to do without while big sis' is boppin' around
with her new iPod.