If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Just like my daughter's mother...
No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time, to the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't exactly what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and sends 1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids? There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are compliant in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids had nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh. ....used her income tax "refund" - you know, the kind they give to people who didn't pay in in the first place - and made a down payment on a Jeep. 5 seats...for her AND 5 kids. Fortunately (?) the oldest son at 12 is doing his own thing most of the time and rarely goes with them. Mel Gamble "Tracy" wrote in message news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02... yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two children during the 2+ years he had custody... do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't *have to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75 easily. *snicker* Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** "Simpledog" wrote in message ... Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child. "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Be sure you explain to them ... I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't being used for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge the college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all the things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way past the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge to ask her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was moot, as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day. So, it mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the 'guideline' amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all the extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra 600 bucks laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls that he's not able to do those things anymore. ... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE can do those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get all the same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should remind mom that she's now supposed to be supplying those things. I endorse this strategy 100%. If the father's discretionary spending on the children is curtailed by an increase in his CS payments to the mother, it is only fair the father let the children know the money he used to spend on the children is now money the mother has available to spend on them. This is how children learn about the impact of CS awards on their fathers and how the money flows post-divorce. It is an opportunity for fathers to teach their children about the financial realities of CS money and show their children how mothers get money they used to spend on the children. There is nothing wrong with a father telling his children you need to get your mother to buy all the extras now because I pay her the money through CS that I used to spend on you. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
gini52 wrote in message ... "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? == My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child support expenditures should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only place there is room for misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle award. You and your wife deserved the dinner out. Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good hands. == == You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child. Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month. The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount, especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things. It wouldn't require her to detail every meal, clothing purchase, etc. But it would require her to show that she did buy the extra things that she used to justify such a high CS amount. For example, if the CP was awarded an add-on for horseback riding lessons, I see nothing wrong with requiring the CP to provide reciepts for the lessons. Same thing for a daycare add-on. Daycare expenses are variable. A good commercial daycare facility can cost around $900.00/month, while an unlicensed informal daycare situation may cost as little as $400/month. What would be the argument against requiring CPs to provide reciepts for the add-on items used to increase CS awards beyond the guideline formula, not that the guideline formula is reasonable, mind you (actually for lower income people it may be reasonable, except for the pesky fact that they have a low income). Such an arrangement, would be no more burdensome than the IRS requirement to provide the receipts for your charitable deductions, if they ask. Ganted the NCP will probably ask for the receipts every year. Sorry for the rambling. But I think this idea would be a good compromise between requiring receipts for everything and not requiring receipts for anything. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
It wouldn't be complicated if you limited the requirement to the add-on
items that increase the CS award beyond the guideline formula. The guideline formula amount required from the NCP and attributed to the CP is supposed to cover the child's grocery bill, gasoline usage, utility usage, clothing, and other basic trappings of raising a child. At lower income levels, it may not cover these items, but at high income levels it more than covers them. I don't think requiring an accounting of the add-ons would be complicated at all, for a couple of reasons. First, there wouldn't be many of them. Second, the add-on costs would be separate and distinct from something like a utility bill or grocery bill, and thus easily partitioned between CP and child. Zimm wrote in message ... That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT). How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league? I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle. Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art! Zimm Simpledog wrote: I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS, then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue stream from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to 500 a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put 100 away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got wise, and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good parent, but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them? No. Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A 2 door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home. There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money on, while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance. "Test" wrote in message news So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to see where that money goes: - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2) - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court - new mini-van - new house - trips - other non-kid things And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day care, clothes, etc. Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Tracy wrote in message news:FGURa.92094$H17.28568@sccrnsc02... "Zimm" wrote in message ... That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT). How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league? I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle. Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art! I feel the real issue isn't knowing exactly where the money went, but the idea of having a say on how much is spent. I'm sure many wouldn't feel they need to see receipts if they were paying what they believe is reasonable child support. In other words, if he was paying the original agreed amount of $500/month he may feel there is no need for accountability because he had a say in the amount. To him $500/month is fair, and it will be used to support his kids. But when the state jumped in and said $1,000/month - then things took a turn for the worse. He couldn't see justification in $1,000/month. You can expect the custodial parent to jump through hoops "proving" where the money went, but will that really solve the real issue? What is the real issue? Would he really feel better handing over $1,000/month in child support if she could show where that money is going? Or would he really feel better handing over $$$ in child support if he had a *say* in how much and possibly where it was going? I would much rather see direct involvement on the part of the NCP. In other words, an agreement that they'll pay for certain items directly. Tracy, what you say is partially correct. Yes, having a say would make it easier. But, that say is only as good as the CP's willingness to allow that say. If push comes to shove, the CP will prevail, because the money is in the CP's control and the NCP's only recourse, in the event of disagreement, is going to court. I see little reason to spend money going to court to prevent the CP spending the money in the manner she chooses. IOW, even if the NCP prevails in court and prevents the CP from spending the CS in a manner contrary to the NCP's wishes, the CP still has the money to spend in other ways. No sense throwing good money after bad money. Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
Don't feel so bad. My arrears for three years alone pay for her house
completely. Yet she gets to keep the profit and I don't even have enough left over to rent a mud hut. "Simpledog" wrote in message ... No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time, to the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't exactly what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and sends 1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids? There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are compliant in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids had nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh. "Tracy" wrote in message news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02... yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two children during the 2+ years he had custody... do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't *have to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75 easily. *snicker* Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** "Simpledog" wrote in message ... Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child. "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"frazil" wrote in message ... gini52 wrote in message ... "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? == My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child support expenditures should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only place there is room for misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle award. You and your wife deserved the dinner out. Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good hands. == == You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child. Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month. The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount, especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things. === So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax deductions--I have boxes of them. If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order an audit and, the judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify expenditures is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There is simply no excuse to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards. === === |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
gini52 wrote in message ... "frazil" wrote in message ... gini52 wrote in message ... "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? == My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child support expenditures should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only place there is room for misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle award. You and your wife deserved the dinner out. Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good hands. == == You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child. Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month. The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point. It seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount, especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things. === So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax deductions--I have boxes of them. If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order an audit and, the judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify expenditures is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There is simply no excuse to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards. === === I tend to agree with you. But I'd also be willing to find a compromise solution. One possible compromise would be to only require receipts when the CS award exceeds a certain amount or for any add-on expenses included in the CS award. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message hlink.net... "Mel Gamble" wrote in message ... Be sure you explain to them ... I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't being used for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge the college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all the things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way past the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge to ask her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was moot, as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day. So, it mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the 'guideline' amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all the extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra 600 bucks laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls that he's not able to do those things anymore. ... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE can do those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get all the same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should remind mom that she's now supposed to be supplying those things. I endorse this strategy 100%. Do you endorse a similar strategy on the part of the CP in cases where the NCP doesn't pay the CS? No. Unfortunately you are mixing increases in CS money being spent and how that money is distributed between the parents, with non-payment of CS and money that is not being transferred between the parents. Our legal system makes the assumption non-payment of CS by an NCP is made up for by the CP parent replacing any CS money not received with their own money. IOW - the children do not suffer any adverse affect for non-payment of CS. If a CP were to make the complaint you suggested, they would be falsely representing the legal precedence of their circumstance to the children. Arrearages are routinely assigned to the CP only under this legal principle and where this really shows is when payments are made directly to an adult child. If arrearages occur, they accrue to the CP, not the child, even though the child is named as the "pay to" party for the CS. Another example is when CS arrearages are still being paid to the CP after the children are grown and no longer in the CP's household. The CP is the judgment creditor and the children have no claim to CS money. If a CP were to complain about non-payment of CS to their children causing them to suffer adverse affects they would be making a complaint to the children that could not be backed up in the law. When an NCP tells his children he is paying more money to their mother so she can spend more on them, he is making a statement that can be backed up in the law. Would that be ok with you too? Or is it only permissible for dad to say things like this? See above. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Where the CS goes....
"Simpledog" wrote in message
... No, you shouldn't. Not *I*. I wasn't talking about me. I wouldn't hand over anything to my ex, nor would I even question if I should. As I said, "As you said"??? Said what??? Shall we review what *you* said to Jon? The comment *you* made to Jon was a snide remark directed at him concerning him spending $75 on a dinner. Your words to Jon, "Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child." == that after he clearly stated he received his *first* child support check *after* raising his son plus his ex's son (Jon's "ex"-step-son) for two years straight. So what was it that you said? What was it that *I* replied to? Tracy ~~~~~~~ http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/ "You can't solve problems with the same type of thinking that created them." Albert Einstein *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net *** "Tracy" wrote in message news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02... yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two children during the 2+ years he had custody... do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't *have to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75 easily. *snicker* "Simpledog" wrote in message ... Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child. "Jon" wrote in message ... I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I should send the receipt? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|