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

teachrmama wrote:
"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?



If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both
paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most
fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is
based on a flawed "standard" anyhow...

Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured
to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my
daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a
necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to
something similar, the same goes for him.

May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like
yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying
'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child
will be.

Banty

Banty wrote:
teachrmama wrote:
"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?


If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both
paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most
fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is
based on a flawed "standard" anyhow...

Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured
to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my
daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a
necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to
something similar, the same goes for him.

May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like
yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying
'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child
will be.

Banty



Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it
is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't
think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact
families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods.
Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding
and (an appropriate degree of) respect.

--

Sarah Gray

On Nov 15, 8:56 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
Banty wrote:
teachrmama wrote:
"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?

If someone is raising two children who have different fathers, both
paying support, I can see how it could be difficult for even the most
fair CP to not comingle funds somewhat. Then again, child support is
based on a flawed "standard" anyhow...

Child support mandated by the government should certainly not be figured
to cover anything besides the most basic expenses. If I want to take my
daughter to a movie or to the zoo, that is *my* decision, it's not a
necessary expense, so I pay. If her father wants to treat her to
something similar, the same goes for him.

May I humbly suggest that your point of view is easier to hold when, like
yourself, the CP has the resources not to have to face 15 or so years of saying
'no', living with an unhappy, unoccupied child, and the adolescent that child
will be.

Banty

Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it
is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't
think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact
families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods.
Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding
and (an appropriate degree of) respect.

--

Sarah Gray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 15, 8:56 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
snip


Actually, I am not particularly well off. When we go to the movies, it
is only once in a while, and usually to the dollar show. I just don't
think the government should be mandating "extras"; the parents in intact
families are not put in jail for not buying their kids ipods.
Kids don't need lots of stuff to be happy. Kids need love, understanding
and (an appropriate degree of) respect.

--

Sarah Gray- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.

Geesh, Leda, she said she went to the dollar show. And not very often.


I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.

She said that, now that the dad has moved out of state, he does not have the
daughter half the time, and she is going to have to pay for child care. She
would like the dad to contribute for the child's needs, because that will
help her pay for thye now-necessary child care. I though you were of the
opinion that fathers should provide for their children? Did you change your
mind?

wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were
already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three
weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right
after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not
supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had
been....

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were
already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three
weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right
after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not
supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had
been....

I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father being
laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father. Lay-offs
are employer decisions, not father decisions.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were
already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three
weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right
after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not
supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had
been....

I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father
being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father.
Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions.

For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was
voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding responsibilities.
As much as I think (actually know) the system is stacked against NCPs,
usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal, because the system is
not designed to really do any good at all. Not for NCPs, CPs, or children.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they were
already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three
weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right
after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not
supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he had
been....

I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father
being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father.
Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions.

For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was
voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding
responsibilities. As much as I think (actually know) the system is stacked
against NCPs, usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal, because
the system is not designed to really do any good at all. Not for NCPs,
CPs, or children.

I realize this is an anecdote, but I managed a facility with over 125 hourly
union employees and no one ever asked me to lay them off. The issue was
always how they could move to a different job classification to avoid a lay
off. An employee who didn't want to work faked an occupational injury.
Real employer lay-offs are done on a seniority basis and by job
qualifications under union contract and/or workplace pre-defined rules.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive. It
is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to come out
on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want for 5 days,
or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater with a bunch
of people you don't even know. I see now why you want your ex to "help
support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet. Live
within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they
were
already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off" three
weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened right
after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's not
supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that he
had
been....

I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father
being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father.
Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions.

For the most part I agree with you, Bob. Unless the "lay off" was
voluntary, and is an ongoing part of a pattern of avoiding
responsibilities. As much as I think (actually know) the system is
stacked against NCPs, usually men, there are CPs who also get a raw deal,
because the system is not designed to really do any good at all. Not
for NCPs, CPs, or children.

I realize this is an anecdote, but I managed a facility with over 125
hourly union employees and no one ever asked me to lay them off. The
issue was always how they could move to a different job classification to
avoid a lay off. An employee who didn't want to work faked an
occupational injury. Real employer lay-offs are done on a seniority basis
and by job qualifications under union contract and/or workplace
pre-defined rules.

I know that, Bob. But, from what Sarah has told us, it seems that her ex
has been avoiding the whole child support issue. It is too bad he moved so
far away from his child. But I can definitely see where his moving, and her
losing the time he cared for her and now needing child care would have put a
severe crimp in an already month-to-month budget. And the system, as much
as it brags that it makes sure these children are cared for, can do
absolutely nothing to help. That's what makes the whole thing so terrible.
The unfairness is not even vaguely balanced by any "good deeds" that might
not be accomplished without the system.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
wrote in


Going to the movies is not something you need in order to survive.
It is more practical, and cose efficent to wait for the movie to
come out on DVD. $3.50 to watch a movie as many times as you want
for 5 days, or $9.50 a ticket to watch a movie one time in a theater
with a bunch of people you don't even know. I see now why you want
your ex to "help support" your daughter.
I am sorry, but if you are saying that you need money from your ex,
you should not be going to the movies, or even have the internet.
Live within your means and then you won't need to depend on him for
suport.


I live within my means. I don't see how spending three dollars on two
movie tickets every few months should negate my ex-husband's
responsibility towards his daughter... I am not asking for him to pay
for extras! If he was taking care of his responsibilities to his
daughter, maybe I wouldn't have to put off seeing movies until they
were already on DVD, but playing at the dollar show.
At our court date on Tuesday, I found out that he was "laid off"
three weeks ago. (Of course, it was a coincidence that that happened
right after he got the paperwork from the court) So right now, he's
not supporting her at all, not even the 70 dollars a month or so that
he had been....

I am just amazed at the number of mothers who believe a child's father
being laid off from his job is somehow the manipulation of the father.
Lay-offs are employer decisions, not father decisions.



He was "laid off" a week after he threatened to quit his job to come up
here and "keep dragging me in to court" with the intention of *me*
losing *my* job over it.
He claims he moved down there because jobs are plentiful, but he has
been out of work for nearly a month? I don't buy that.