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

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Banty says...

In article , teachrmama says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Banty says...

In article %hk%i.8$B21.4@trndny07, Gini says...


"Banty" wrote
.............

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household,
who
are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
====
This question and solution have been addressed
repeatedly--eliminate
lifestyle awards
which are inherently unequal. This problem was created and is
maintained
by
the state,
not NCPs, not CPs.


That's your opinion, I disagree. For reasons I've addressed
repeatedly.
I
don't see mingling funds in a subset of cases to be a smaller evul
than
children
in the same household being raised decently together. And, yes, if
I
were
the
father of the first child (the one with 800 bucks to pay per month)
I'd
think so
too. Because I know what happens to raise kids together. They
share.
Mingling
of funds happen when the landlord or mortgage is paid anyway.

Make that, I *do* see mingling of funds to be a smaller evul than
just-above-poverty kids.

The consequences of basics-only would be that the vast majority of
CP's
would be
providing most if not all of the items folks here deem not-basics,
and
they
*would* because they would have to live daily with the consequences
of
not
doing
so, and have the see daily the children's emotions and limitations
if
they
do
not. The NCP does not have that balancing factor. Note w.r.t.
this
that
I also
favor oversight or involvement of a trustee.

I have to disagree with you about what the NCPs would do for their
children.
I think the vast majority would happily supply more than the basic
amount.

I think so too! I *know* so! Of the NCP's I know IRL, this is the
first
place
I've encountered this idea that only the bare bones should be set for
CP.
Just
because someone is happy to provide the extras does not mean it makes
sense to
them for it to be included in the child support payment. Understand?

Erg. - I missed a 'not' in there.

Basically, it makes no material difference if the extras (as you call
them) are
provided in the CS or not if it's coming.

Perhaps the NCP would like to be the one that the child turned to
sometimes
when he wanted something. Perhaps the joy of giving, of providing for
his
own child, is an intangible that helps build a healthy relationship
between
NCP and child.


Nothing's preventing him or her from doing that. And there *is*
visitation.

Sometimes you erally do not seem to think things all the way through,
Banty.
There IS NO MONEY FOR HIM TO DO THESE THINGS!! It was taken for CHILD
SUPPORT!! There is NONE LEFT!!


The flip side of this is - perhaps the NCP would like to have as much
*control*
and would love to have those pursestrings to do it. "MY SON taking DANCE
???!?
Get that idea out of his head! No way!"

Then Mom pays for dance, and dad pays for football. What's the big deal?



Dance may be all the extras both can afford. And dance is what kid (the
one
with her daily to *see* that) wants to do.

And dad is so d*mn selfish that he would insist on football anyway, despite
what his child looked into his eyes and asked for. You have got the LOWEST
OPINION OF NCPS OF ANYONE I HAVE EVER CONVERSED WITH!!!!

Banty wrote:
In article , Banty says...
In article , teachrmama says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Banty says...
In article %hk%i.8$B21.4@trndny07, Gini says...

"Banty" wrote
.............
The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
====
This question and solution have been addressed repeatedly--eliminate
lifestyle awards
which are inherently unequal. This problem was created and is maintained
by
the state,
not NCPs, not CPs.

That's your opinion, I disagree. For reasons I've addressed repeatedly.
I
don't see mingling funds in a subset of cases to be a smaller evul than
children
in the same household being raised decently together. And, yes, if I were
the
father of the first child (the one with 800 bucks to pay per month) I'd
think so
too. Because I know what happens to raise kids together. They share.
Mingling
of funds happen when the landlord or mortgage is paid anyway.
Make that, I *do* see mingling of funds to be a smaller evul than
just-above-poverty kids.

The consequences of basics-only would be that the vast majority of CP's
would be
providing most if not all of the items folks here deem not-basics, and
they
*would* because they would have to live daily with the consequences of not
doing
so, and have the see daily the children's emotions and limitations if they
do
not. The NCP does not have that balancing factor. Note w.r.t. this that
I also
favor oversight or involvement of a trustee.
I have to disagree with you about what the NCPs would do for their children.
I think the vast majority would happily supply more than the basic amount.
I think so too! I *know* so! Of the NCP's I know IRL, this is the first place
I've encountered this idea that only the bare bones should be set for CP. Just
because someone is happy to provide the extras does not mean it makes sense to
them for it to be included in the child support payment. Understand?

Erg. - I missed a 'not' in there.

Basically, it makes no material difference if the extras (as you call them) are
provided in the CS or not if it's coming.

Banty


Yes, it does. It is horribly unfair for the government to mandate that
*some* parents must pay for extras, and other parents don't have to.

--

Sarah Gray

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

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Bob Whiteside
says...

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , teachrmama 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...

"Banty" wrote in message
...

Actually my scenario is about reality and how stated objectives
in
the
CS
system are just "feel good" messages that get ignored in
practice.
And
the
scenario points out the reason so many CP mothers are against
any
form
of
accountability for how CS is spent. They want to treat CS
received
as
unallocated family support which is really the definition of
alimony.
Well, no, alimony is for support of the *ex spouse*.
That is only one of several reasons alimony can be awarded. My
point
is
mothers are against accountability for how CS is spent because
they
want
to
treat the money received as unallocated family support, i.e. they
can
use
it
any way they want at their personal discretion.
Well, the accountability would have to be reasonable. IF a
trustee
or
overseer
is expecting daughter number one to get steak and daughter number
two
to
get mac
and cheese, that woudl be a problem. Maybe those who are opposing
accountability are reading what *you* write.
I'm beginning to think you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.
This
has nothing to do with what the children eat.
I'm trying to illustrate what kind of thing would happen in order to
not
comingle funds in your scenario. Things like rent and heat not
being
divisible
between two kids in a household.
It really shouldn't be that much of a problem. Mom simply adds more
funds
to child # 2's share of income, and things come out equal, right?
Rather
than taking from child 1 to make things even for child 2, she *adds
to*
child 2.
If she *has* those funds. She's got to earn more, then, while caring
for
two
little kids. But the calculation for the other child is based on a
lower
standard of living, lower income father. If she doesn't have extra
funds,
should she maintain different standards of living?
The CS system says that the standard of living is what is necessary--not
the
NCP. You seem to be saying that the NCP *should* be required to pay the
money to provide for that standard of living, but the CP should not be
required to maintain it.

So if you feel so strongly that children of the same mother should be
kept
at the same standard of living, why don't you feel that children of the
same
father are deserving of the same? Aren't all children equally valuable?

After all, she was aware that she had an obligation to child 1
before child 2 came along, right?

The second is the one with the low-income father, remember.
Ah--but she *****KNEW**** she had the older child ****BEFORE**** she
got
together with the new guy. Her obligation to the older child was
already
established, period!! Remember, that's how courts deal with subsequent
children, and you backed that up wholeheartedly in another post.
Sure.

Remember, the *new* daughter has a poorer father. Apparently she's to
have a
lower standard of living. Bob says - she has a share herself as to each
child -
$400 apiece. OK. No argument there. She has that although she
"****KNEW****" about her earlier obligation to the older daughter. No
argument
there.

The *question* is, what to do about two girls in her household, who are
to
be
maintained at a different standard.
The CS system has remedies for this circumstance.
The higher wage earner
father can use the CP's averaging of CS received to his advantage. If the
CP openly acknowledges she does not need $800 to support their joint
child,
and $500 is a more appropriate amount for her circumstance, the father can
mount a powerful legal rebuttal to show the CS guideline amount is not
appropriate in this case. My guess is the court would not lower the CS
award from $800 to $500, but would instead admonish the CP mother to start
spending the court ordered amount on their child.

And how does he show that. A very large part of the benefit to the
younger girl
would be incidental. Being in the same apartment, for example.
Prior to the hearing use discovery to force her to produce a notarized
statement showing how she spents the CS money you both pay for your joint
child. Put her under oath. Ask how much CS she receives. Ask how she
manages the $800/200 difference.

I thought folks here were telling me it's hard to impossible to get any
kind of
remedy in court. Now you're saying this is a reasonbly available
recourse? If
so, where do you see the inequities in your view?
Remedies and CS reductions are not the same thing. In my example I noted
the court should provide a remedy and probably wouldn't provide a CS
reduction. You ask the court for a finding of fact on the record regarding
the court's ruling on the rebuttal to the CS guideline issue.



But Bob, folks here are telling me this is a reason why all kids should have the
same bare-bones CS - prevent this comingling you saw is so awful.

Now you're saying it can be remedied.

Banty


*No one* is saying bare-bones, Banty. "Basic" means just that. Things a
child *needs*, not *wants*.

--

Sarah Gray