Dead-beat parents should lose their future social security to children
T. GreatOne
Sillysal38 wrote:
>
> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
> be a law in all states!!!!
>
>
>
>
Confiscation of property by the government without due process of law
should be a capital offense.
Sillysal38
TeenaMc01
I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
They think just let the state take care of them.
Tracy Hornschuch
On 24 May 1998, TeenaMc01 wrote:
: I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
: kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
: They think just let the state take care of them.
I personaly disagree with both of you to a point... to a point. I don't
think all social security benifits should be withheld just because they
owe back support...
Tracy
*==*==*==*==*==*==*
tra...@teleport.com |
Tra...@orst.edu | Have you told your children
http://www.teleport.com/~tracyh/ | you love them today?
"A wise man never laughs at his wife's old clothes."
Jack O Trades
In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
silly...@aol.com says...
a better idea, if a parent dosen't pay HIS child support, let's force him
to carry life insurance. Then, just take him out behind the court house
and shoot him. I mean the poor bastard is only gonna suffer the next 18
to 20 years anyway right? This way you can get your cash right now.
We'll just pass a law that says that "iffin you shout a dead beat dad in
the head behind a court house, it's OK".
This way you and everyone else like you can get their money in one big
lump sum and be done with it. No more hassles or bitching. So remember
boys and girls, euthanise a dead beat dad for posterity.
(If you couldn't tell, this was oozing with sarcasm)
--
jack of all trades
jtr...@iname.com
Troubles borrowed will be repaid with interest compounded on sorrow.
ZenRose
>I personaly disagree with both of you to a point... to a point. I don't
>think all social security benifits should be withheld just because they
>owe back support...
>
>
>Tracy
>
>
If their ss payments were held only up to the ammt of what's owed in back CS,
then would u agree??
(i happen tot tink it's ain interesting point.)
Mark Jebens
silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
> be a law in all states!!!!
Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
--
Mark Jebens
Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
GudGye11
In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
Jebens) writes:
Right, Mark....
Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
the CS they receive on their children?
I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
It's called "equal protection" I believe.
Bill & Stacey
Only problem is, they will NEVER give that money to the custodial parents
or the children. You are barking up the wrong tree.
As with the $0.65 for every dollar of child support the fed pays the
states, never a single penny of that goes to the families of those who are not
receiving child support. It has nothing to do with the kids. It is a power hungy,
insane system that is eating out our substance........
Mark Jebens
gudg...@aol.com (GudGye11) wrote on 24 May 1998 22:38:10 GMT:
> In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
> Jebens) writes:
> >silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
> >
> >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> >social
> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> >child or
> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> >child
> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> >should
> >> be a law in all states!!!!
> >
> >Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
> >neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
> >other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
> >
> >--
> >Mark Jebens
> >Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
> Right, Mark....
> Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
> to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
> the CS they receive on their children?
> I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
> also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
> because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
> It's called "equal protection" I believe.
GudGye11
In article <199805250506...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, nowh...@aol.com
(NoWhere9) writes:
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>In an article teen...@aol.com (TeenaMc01) writes:
>
>>I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
>>kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
>
>>They think just let the state take care of them.
>
>And YOU need to find a job that pays your bills and provides for the kids
>WITHOUT child support!
>
>What good is it going to do if you can not provide for them, and all you do
>is cry about it?!?!
Good point.....on the one hand you criticize these 2 so-called "deadbeat dads"
while at the same time admitting YOU yourself don't support your kids, the
state does.
Do you ever refer to yourself as a "deadbeat mom"? If not, you should start.
User132384
> As with the $0.65 for every dollar of child support the fed pays the
What's this ?????
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------
My Jekyll Doesn't Hyde
SoccerStepMom
TeenaMc01 wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.
Just curious - are you done breeding fatherless kids with men who have
no interest in helping you support them? One I can understand. Two
begins to sound like a pattern... SSM
Pat Winstanley
In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne <jch...@sprynet.com>
writes
>Sillysal38 wrote:
>>
>> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
>social
>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent & child
>or
>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay child
>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This should
>> be a law in all states!!!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>should be a capital offense.
So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this should happen?
--
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley
In article <199805242238...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
<gudg...@aol.com> writes
>In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
>Jebens) writes:
>
>>silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
>>
>>social
>>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
>>child or
>>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
>>child
>>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
>>should
>>> be a law in all states!!!!
>>
>>neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
>>other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
>>
>>--
>>Mark Jebens
>>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
>
>Right, Mark....
>
>Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
>to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
>the CS they receive on their children?
>
>I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
>also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
>because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
>
Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
(Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
(How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
they need to support their actions).
Would you see the above as fair?
If not, why not?
Lori moffit
I for one would see it as a big step forward. Yes, it would be fair if
things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
however. :-(
Lori
SoccerStepMom
It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
"would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
on, and so on.
Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because
that's not the theory behind CS levels. You can lobby to change the
theory, but you can't argue that the theory isn't fairly applied when CS
is *not* designated simply for out-of-pocket costs as the NCPs assert.
SSM
GJP
SoccerStepMom wrote:
>
snip
>
> It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
> consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
> direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
> CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
> "would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
> actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
> on, and so on.
Not true. The ability to identify the CPs costs and share for the children's
expenses can be done......and it is much simpler than that. The box theory in a
shabby neighborhood is irrelevant since the CP lives in a house/apartment in a
given neighborhood.
> Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
> commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
> variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because
> that's not the theory behind CS levels.
And the theory is???
Greg Palumbo
Pat Winstanley
In article <356AC8F4...@bignet.net>, Lori moffit
<lmo...@bignet.net> writes
>> Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
>> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
>> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
>>
>> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
>> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
>> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
>> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
>>
>> (Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
>> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
>>
>> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
>> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
>> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
>> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
>> they need to support their actions).
>>
>> Would you see the above as fair?
>>
>> If not, why not?
>
>
>things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
>however. :-(
>Lori
So why don't you campaign for something along those lines? Lobby your
government reps etc... get it in the media!
Bill & Stacey
Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
> <jch...@sprynet.com>
> writes
> >Sillysal38 wrote:
> >>
> >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child
> support should lose all
> >social
> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
> the the parent & child
> >or
> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
> care enough to pay child
> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
> later years? This should
> >> be a law in all states!!!!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Confiscation of property by the government without due
> process of law
> >should be a capital offense.
>
> So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
> should happen?
>
I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
trial? What about the right to face your accuser? What
about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
defense? Without these, the court has no power to order
ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....
BRONSCH
TeenaMc01 wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.
Why didn't you learn after the first one?
Mark Jebens
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote on Tue, 26 May
1998 10:27:34 +0100:
> In article <199805242238...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, GudGye11
> <gudg...@aol.com> writes
> >In article <6ka6rk$1...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Xmje...@primenet.com (Mark
> >Jebens) writes:
> >
> >>silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote on 24 May 1998 04:38:53 GMT:
> >>
> >>> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> >>social
> >>> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> >>child or
> >>> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> >>child
> >>> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> >>should
> >>> be a law in all states!!!!
> >>
> >>Parents who allow their children to fall below the minimum standard for
> >>neglect should all be subjected to the same penalties. Any
> >>other standard is capricious, sexist and unjust.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Mark Jebens
> >>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
> >
> >Right, Mark....
> >
> >Are CPs going to be held to the same standards? Should they make an accounting
> >to some type of governmental authority to verify that they have spent all of
> >the CS they receive on their children?
> >
> >I would agree with Sillysal's proposal if (and that's a BIG IF) if CPs would
> >also be accountable for the CS they receive. But I don't have to worry,
> >because CPs will probably never have to be accountable for such.
> >
> >It's called "equal protection" I believe.
> Now would it be so difficult to work it so that the CP could be landed
> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
This would not be easy at all. First you would have to change the law.
Since CS is used as backdoor alimony and our representatives like it
that way, the current laws will not be changed.
> (Four weeks should give those who don't keep [or occasionally lose]
> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
>
> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
> they need to support their actions).
> Would you see the above as fair?
> If not, why not?
Better yet, just use that information to set the CS to begin with.
Pat Winstanley
In article <356B2B88...@cyberhighway.net>, Bill & Stacey
<Wst...@cyberhighway.net> writes
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
>> In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
>> <jch...@sprynet.com>
>> writes
>> >Sillysal38 wrote:
>> >>
>> support should lose all
>> >social
>> >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
>> the the parent & child
>> >or
>> >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
>> care enough to pay child
>> >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
>> later years? This should
>> >> be a law in all states!!!!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> process of law
>> >should be a capital offense.
>>
>> So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
>> should happen?
>>
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
>trial?
What is a "fair trial"?
> What about the right to face your accuser?
What about it?
> What
>about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
>defense?
What about it?
> Without these, the court has no power to order
>ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....
>
In what way?
Bill, you are a CP... you are learning what it's like tio be a CP and
not be listened to because you are a second class citizen as a CP rather
than a member of the "boys club".
Life simply isn't fair if you happen to be on the losing side. Live with
it, or change it.
Anonymous
Bill & Stacey wrote:
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
>
> > In article <3566F1...@sprynet.com>, T. GreatOne
> > <jch...@sprynet.com>
> > writes
> > >Sillysal38 wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child
> > support should lose all
> > >social
> > >> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to
> > the the parent & child
> > >or
> > >> children that suffered without. If the parent did not
> > care enough to pay child
> > >> support why should we care how thay make it in their
> > later years? This should
> > >> be a law in all states!!!!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >Confiscation of property by the government without due
> > process of law
> > >should be a capital offense.
> >
> > So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this
> > should happen?
> >
>
> I hate to burst your bubble, but what about a fair
> about teh right to present facts and wittnesses in your
> ANYTHING. But, they do it all the time these days.....
>
Karin
>>>
>>>
>>Confiscation of property by the government without due process of law
>>should be a capital offense.
>
>So, what is "due process of the law" if the law says this should happen?
>
How about PROOF that it didn't happen before judgements are arbitrarily
entered to take things?
Karin
Karin
Sillysal38 wrote in message
<199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
social
>security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
child or
>children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
child
>support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
should
>be a law in all states!!!!
>
Maybe in your mind this would work, however, the money being paid into the
system right now is actually being paid out to our parents & grand parents.
Also, there is no gaurentee that anyone will live long enough to collect SS,
so you know what the government would have to say abot that.
Karin
NoWhere9 wrote in message
<199805250506...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
>x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>One point that should be made is not every so-called "deadbeat" parent is
>really in arrears, some are in arrears by no fault of their own, and some
>willfully choose not to pay. Oh, I almost forgot, some "deadbeat parents"
>are really DEAD.
>
Some are actually NOT in arrears & never have been....Our ex got a court
order to have my husbands retirement pension garnished by simply telling the
judge that he hadn't paid and she didn't know where he was. She had been
sending nasty grams to him for months and he had been sending her checks
every week. We presented all of this later in court (we had to institute the
action) and the garnishment was lifted. She told us later that she wanted
the amount of support paid all at once on the first, that's why she had the
garnishment done. She was also charged with perjury in this instance because
we showed proof that she knew where he was and had not fallen behind in his
suipport.
>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
>children, what should happen with them?
>
>
What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
Karin
Pat Winstanley
In article <6kgt0t$qm9$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes
What are you talking about? You snipped so much I have lost the context.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6kguf8$rd0$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes
>>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
>>children, what should happen with them?
>>
>>
>
>What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
>ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
>three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
>SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
>WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
>Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
>yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
What punishment would you like to see?
Pat Winstanley
In article <6kgt7t$qqk$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
<nospam...@earthlink.net> writes
However it would be perfectly possible to ensure that such defaulters
couldn't claim when they came to retire if there were funds available at
the time.
Why not?
And why would the government have a problem with that? The government
could simply take the non CS paying NCP's contributions and credit them
to the CP as the CP's contributions instead...
Lori moffit
Karin wrote:
> >But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to their
> >children, what should happen with them?
> >
> >
>
> What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held the
> ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
> three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
> SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She just
> WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
> Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't know
> yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what would
> be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
I believe they should lose custody to the other parent, and that the
custody change should be irrevocable.
Lori
Karin
Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...
>In article <6kguf8$rd0$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>, Karin
><nospam...@earthlink.net> writes
>>>But I must ask you about the woEmen who refuse the father access to
their
>>>children, what should happen with them?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>What, indeed? In the above referenced court action, the judge also held
the
>>ex in contempt for violation of decree for interfering with visitation for
>>three years. Even after all of that, she WON'T LET THEM SEE their Dad this
>>SUMMER! It's in the court order, but she simply refuses. Go figure. She
just
>>WANTS to be this way. We have contacted our attorney, once again, in
>>Mississippi and she is taking care of the paperwork in court. We don't
know
>>yet whether we will ahve to travel again to appear in court. So, what
would
>>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
>
>Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
>
>What punishment would you like to see?
>
>--
>Pat Winstanley
>http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
Unfortunately the fines would end being paid by my husband, as the ex
doesn't work & lives on the children's money....trickle up economics, if you
will. Imprisonment? Maybe. What effect this would have on the children, I
don't know. She has kept them away from their father for so long that they
hardly know him. They might be further harmed emotionally, being seperated
from their mom in this manner. I really don't know. There is no simple
answer as each situation differs in circumstance, ie - ages of children, how
long since they have visited with the NCP, finacnial situation of CP, etc.
Any one else have any ideas?
Karin
Mark Jebens
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
arrangement themselves.
> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> for the child)
> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> goes to the child.
> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> to the old system).
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote:
>
> Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
social
> security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
child or
> children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
child
> support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
should
> be a law in all states!!!!
OK, fine. But now, question for question, under what circumstances can a NCP
prove to the court that they are capable of responsibly supporting their
children without the need for court-ordered support enforced by wage
garnishments.
Under the current system ALL male NCPs are automatically guilty of being
irresponsible louts who require a court to order them to give money to the
mothers of their children (though there are plenty of cases where courts
order men to pay support for children who aren't even theirs).
Unless there is a legal, honorable out for responsible NCPs, the system is a
fraud.
Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a court
office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to actually
support my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech (actually,
'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It shouldn't be
necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it (something, I might
add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
jon.g...@wonderware.com
> Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
for the child)
Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
goes to the child.
Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
to the old system).
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <356ADA...@hotmail.com>,
SoccerStepMom <soccer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It won't solve the problem that NCPs here have, because the courts
> consider it reasonable to assess part of the "fixed" costs of the CP as
> direct child costs, while many of the NCPs here do not. So in truth the
> CP would have to haul in real estate appraisals of the house they
> "would" have if they didn't have the kids and compare it to what they
> actually pay, to justify the kids' incremental share of housing - and so
> on, and so on.
>
> Since we don't receive CS, it is not a factor for us. I'm just
> commenting that the people who try to make the discussion all about
> variable out of pocket costs are never going to get anywhere, because
> that's not the theory behind CS levels. You can lobby to change the
> theory, but you can't argue that the theory isn't fairly applied when CS
> is *not* designated simply for out-of-pocket costs as the NCPs assert.
Who here maintains that CS is designed simply to cover out-of-pocket
expenses. It isn't. People who think differently are fooling themselves.
CS is designed to reimburse women for all the expenses of raising children
because that is what the people who made the policy think is right and all
the women, lawyers and politicians who benefit from this idiotic system are
perfectly willing to agree to it.
A Scottish philospher called Alexander Tytler once wrote (I'm paraphrasing)
that Democracy can only exist as a form of government until special interests
discover that they can vote themselves a payday out of someone else's
pocket. So-called "entitlements" are big business in government circles and
I'm not just talking about traditional images of "welfare" as money paid to
the poor and addled but corporate welfare in the form of huge subsidies paid
to bloated corporations as well as money paid to women out of the pockets of
their children's father. Welfare comes from all over and make no mistake, CS
*IS* welfare.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <tPGKY$Be$ta1...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <356AC8F4...@bignet.net>, Lori moffit
> <lmo...@bignet.net> writes
> >> without warning and totally at random (whether the NCP has queried or
> >> not) a notice on a CP stating something like:
> >>
> >> You are required to supply to the court within four weeks of the date of
> >> this notice, an accounting of how the CS you received last month for
> >> your child was spent. Supporting dockets will be helpful to you, and in
> >> their absence you will need to present your case verbally to the court.
> >>
> >> receipts time to obtain the dockets...)
> >>
> >> (How long is it between the date a NCP should have paid CS and hasn't
> >> and a notice chasing the NCP to pay up now or else? Is that shorter or
> >> longer than 4 weeks from date of non-payment? Whatever, the CP and NCP
> >> should have a similar amount of time to get hold of the documentation
> >> they need to support their actions).
> >>
> >> Would you see the above as fair?
> >>
> >> If not, why not?
> >
> >
> >things were this way. I doubt it'll ever happen in this country,
> >however. :-(
> >Lori
>
> So why don't you campaign for something along those lines? Lobby your
> government reps etc... get it in the media!
The problem is that it is a very easy matter for the sheep to start bleating
"four legs good, two legs bad!"
Pardon the Orwellian metaphor (there is much that is Orwellian about the
current system though) but the problem is very real. The minute you start
talking about anything which could even REMOTELY be construed as reducing
child-support awards under any circumstances then the people who profit by
the current system start screaming at the top of their lungs that you are an
unfeeling creep who just wants to hurt children and benefit deadbeat dads.
It doesn't matter if you have a good point or not and it doesn't matter if
you have facts on your side or not. All that matters is that "they" think
you are wrong and, unfortunately, "they" have the political power at the
moment.
There was a situation in California where this guy had done some studies
which *proved* that the current formula was biased against low-income fathers
and subjected them and their children to significant financial hardships
while allowing wealthier men to get off with a smaller bit out of their
paychecks. He showed his new formula which would correct the imbalance and
close some of the loopholes which were available to the very wealthy.
He was immediately denounced as a child-hating, woman-bashing cretin who just
wanted to help deadbeat dads get away from doing their "duty". His cardinal
sin? He wanted to reduce some of the support payments made by lower-income
men. Gasp! The nerve!!!
The fact is that you have a better chance getting elected or re-elected on a
flat-earth or pro-polygamy platform than you do having been seen as
sympathetic to NCPs.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <199805240512...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
teen...@aol.com (TeenaMc01) wrote:
>
> I believe that they should lose their social security also because I have 2
> kids from 2 dead beat dads and they could careless how their kids eat
sleep.
> They think just let the state take care of them.
They'll be hearing from that state before long. The state doesn't like to
pay out those tax dollars. I suspect when you signed up for that care
package from the state, they made you sign over to them the right to collect
child-support on your behalf. And believe me, they mean to collect that
money or put your exes in jail if they don't pay. Not that you should worry
about it much, you won't see much of that money - if any. But then, on the
other hand, you already got it so what's the problem? What difference does
it make to you whether the state gives you taxpayer's money or money from
your exes?
NoWhere9
>
>
>How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
>from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
>ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
>This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
>But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
>parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
>food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
>for the child)
>
>Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
>goes to the child.
>
>Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
>give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
>to the old system).
I have been saying this for about five YEARS! It is the ONLY way CS would
ever be fair! Now I have someone else saying the same thing!!
THANKS!!!! ;-)
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>
> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> for the child)
>
It all sounds good except "no taking out money for food or utilities". So who
pays for these? What if one parent refuses to share custody and either willingly
or forceably pays their half? The other parent is then accountable solely for
all food and extra costs in utilities 100% of the time? Granted, if JC exists,
each will provide food and utilities. But there are some instances where one
parent just refuses to share custody.
> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> goes to the child.
>
> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> to the old system).
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
--
Char
*To send e-mail, replace hell with heaven. LOL
Char
Mark Jebens wrote:
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
>
> > In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> > Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>
> > How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> > from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> > ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
> How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
> or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>
> pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
> arrangement themselves.
>
Also good advice, except when the one parent that is "unwilling to physically care
for them" is also unwilling to "work out some other arrangement themselves". Then
the other parent must foot the added cost of insurance, medical expenses, etc.
> > This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
> > But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
> > parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> > food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
> > for the child)
>
> > Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
> > goes to the child.
>
> > Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
> > give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
> > to the old system).
>
> --
> Mark Jebens
> Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
--
Pat Winstanley
In article <6kiphk$e...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Mark Jebens
<Xmje...@primenet.com> writes
>jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
>
>> In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
>> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
>> > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
>> > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
>> > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
>
>
>> How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
>> from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
>> ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
>
>How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
>or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>
>pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
>arrangement themselves.
>
If the child is with each parent more or less the same amount of time
and in more or less the circumstances, then yes. No problem.
However what would you do about expenses that spanned the time the child
was with both parents (annual or monthly fees for instance) one or both
parents will NOT co-operate?
>> This would include things like clothes, school supplies, medical care, etc.
>
>> But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things the
>> parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
>> food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health insurance
>> for the child)
>
>> Final bonus: any money left in that account on the child's 18th birthday
>> goes to the child.
>
>> Naturally, this system would also include penalties for a parent refusing to
>> give their consent for a legitmate need (up to and including simply reverting
>> to the old system).
>
>--
>Mark Jebens
>Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
>
--
Pat Winstanley
http://www.pierless.demon.co.uk
Pat Winstanley
In article <199805280525...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, NoWhere9
<nowh...@aol.com> writes
>x-no-archive: yes
>In an article Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>So, what would
>>>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
>>
>>Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
>
Do you think it should?
Why do you think it would never happen?
Leslie
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> In article <199805240438...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> silly...@aol.com (Sillysal38) wrote:
> >
> > Parents who do not pay their court ordered child support should lose all
> social
> > security money owed to them. It should be forfited to the the parent &
> child or
> > children that suffered without. If the parent did not care enough to pay
> child
> > support why should we care how thay make it in their later years? This
> should
> > be a law in all states!!!!
>
> OK, fine. But now, question for question, under what circumstances can a NCP
> prove to the court that they are capable of responsibly supporting their
> children without the need for court-ordered support enforced by wage
> garnishments.
Things must be different here in Canada -- CS is not automatically garnished.
However, when my ex stopped paying, I filed with the Family Maintenance
Enforcement Program and they got his wages garnished. At first my ex was
ticked but recently he said he was glad of the garnishment. I think it's much
easier for him to have the CS automatically taken out than directly write a
cheque to me. If you can't get things changed, maybe try to change the way
you look at it.
Leslie
>
> Under the current system ALL male NCPs are automatically guilty of being
> irresponsible louts who require a court to order them to give money to the
> mothers of their children (though there are plenty of cases where courts
> order men to pay support for children who aren't even theirs).
>
> Unless there is a legal, honorable out for responsible NCPs, the system is a
> fraud.
>
> Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
> involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a court
> office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to actually
> support my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech (actually,
> 'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It shouldn't be
> necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it (something, I might
> add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).
>
Leslie
NoWhere9 wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
> In an article Pat Winstanley <pee...@pierless.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
> >So, what would
> >>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
> >
> >Hefty fines and/or imprisonment.
>
> Never will happen [except when the father is a CP]!!
I don't know. A woman here in Canada was recently jailed for refusing
visitation. I agree that there are not enough safeguards for this but I think
the tide is changing.
Leslie
Jean Coyle
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in message
<6kield$7dp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a
court>office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to
actuallysupport my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech
(actually,>'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It
shouldn't be>necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it
(something, I might>add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).
I would not only be willing to complete full quarterly fiscal disclosure I'd
be thrilled if my ex were to pay people like the kid's doctors and daycare
provider directly.
He wouldn't have to send me a direct dime ! What would the beef be then ?
Jean
Mark Jebens
Char <almos...@geocities.com> wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:48:28 -0400:
> Mark Jebens wrote:
> > jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote on Thu, 28 May 1998 01:38:23 GMT:
> >
> > > In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> > > Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > > > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage of
> > > > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the NCP.
> >
> > > How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank account
> > > from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission and
> > > ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
> >
> > How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
> > or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
> > pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
> > arrangement themselves.
> Also good advice, except when the one parent that is "unwilling to physically care
> for them" is also unwilling to "work out some other arrangement themselves". Then
> the other parent must foot the added cost of insurance, medical expenses, etc.
I added the exception because that arrangement would not work in that
case.
If one parent is unwilling to physcially support their children, then
I am all for that parent being forced to provide the other with a fair
share of costs.
Char
Mark Jebens wrote:
> > Also good advice, except when the one parent that is "unwilling to physically care
> > for them" is also unwilling to "work out some other arrangement themselves". Then
> > the other parent must foot the added cost of insurance, medical expenses, etc.
>
> I added the exception because that arrangement would not work in that
> case.
>
> If one parent is unwilling to physcially support their children, then
> I am all for that parent being forced to provide the other with a fair
> share of costs.
>
I sometimes wonder if it is ever possible for 2 people on this NG to agree on anything.
You have restored my faith. ;-)
Anyway, I do believe that there will always exist people who will need to be "forced" to
comply with their responsibilities. However, I still believe there are ways to do this
other than jailing. Jailing never forces anything, and can only worsen the situation.
> --
> Mark Jebens
> Xmje...@primenet.com (Remove the "X" to reply)
--
Lux
Karin wrote in message <6kguf8$rd0$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>...
> So, what would
>be suggested as punishment for CP's that REFUSE to allow visitation??
>
Here in Ontario, there have been two cases in
the last 2 years of mothers being jailed for
arbitrary withholding of access. The terms were
for short periods, but jail nonetheless.
BTW, I had a situation in 1996 where my youngest
son's mother refused access for 9 months. My
partner and I could not afford a lawyer for 6 of those
months, and despite my lawyer's best efforts
at negotiation, she stood firm and ignored all
efforts at conciliation. When it got in front of a
judge, she (the judge) suggested very strongly
that keeping a child from a parent for that length
of time was disgraceful, and that my ex had better
be able to present convincing reasons for her
actions. We later caught her in 3 direct lies which
could be proven (from government documents,
no less), at which time she dropped her objections
and settled on the exact same terms that my
lawyer had proposed months before.
Net result: I got what I'd asked for, my son and
I lost valuable time together, and our respective
lawyers walked away 10 grand or so richer.
--
Lux (gha...@myna.com)
>>>> When logic fails to persuade, abandon the argument. <<<<
Lux
Leslie wrote in message <356D68A4...@home.com>...
>
>Things must be different here in Canada --
> CS is not automatically garnished.
Actually in Ontario, any court order is now
automatically garnisheed unless the CP
elects to opt out. Older court orders and
independant agreements aren't subject
to this automatic provision, although failure
to abide by them will cause action to be taken
by the FRO (Family Responsibility Office).
The FRO isn't terribly efficient, either. Money
which I personally delivered to the office in
October of 1996 never got to my ex until
September of 1997. Money which my
employer has been sending in since
January did not get to her until early this
month. Any attempts to get through result
in infinite hold.
--
Lux (ghastly@NO_SPAM_myna.com)
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6kiphk$e...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
> or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>
> arrangement themselves.
I think that is a fine idea. But let's be realistic. The entitlement whores
out there will never go for it. You have to change the system a little bit
at a time.
Pat Winstanley
In article <356E43EA...@geocities.com>, Char
<almos...@geocities.com> writes
>Anyway, I do believe that there will always exist people who will need to be
>"forced" to
>comply with their responsibilities. However, I still believe there are ways to
>do this
>other than jailing. Jailing never forces anything, and can only worsen the
>situation.
Dunno... I suppose that depends on what the person sees as the impact of
being jailed. I think I'd do virtually anything and suffer virtually any
other hardship before being jailed. Meanwhile some people see it as no
big deal. The threat of being jailed would make me behave damned quick!
GJP
Slavery comes to mind right along with debtors prisons. For feminazis who
embrace these beleifs.......it is no surprise you would too. And since your sex
virtually precludes you from the injustices....it is no surprise you embrace
them.
Greg Palumbo
Pat Winstanley
In article <6kmor5$cqc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
>In article <6kiphk$e...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
>>
>> How about this: Except when one parent is unfit and can't have the kids
>> or is unwilling to physically care for them, have the parent with the kids
>>
>> pay for the things they needs. The parents may also work out some other
>> arrangement themselves.
>
>I think that is a fine idea. But let's be realistic. The entitlement whores
>out there will never go for it.
Probably not, be they male whores or female whores.
However most people would go for it as long as there were safeguards in
place to make sure that they didn't get stuck with all the support.
Mark Jebens
Char <almos...@geocities.com> wrote on Fri, 29 May 1998 01:13:15 -0400:
> Mark Jebens wrote:
> > > Also good advice, except when the one parent that is "unwilling to physically care
> > > for them" is also unwilling to "work out some other arrangement themselves". Then
> > > the other parent must foot the added cost of insurance, medical expenses, etc.
> >
> > I added the exception because that arrangement would not work in that
> > case.
> >
> > If one parent is unwilling to physcially support their children, then
> > I am all for that parent being forced to provide the other with a fair
> > share of costs.
> >
> I sometimes wonder if it is ever possible for 2 people on this NG to agree on anything.
> You have restored my faith. ;-)
> Anyway, I do believe that there will always exist people who will need to be "forced" to
> comply with their responsibilities.
W.r.t. parenting, we already know this to be true. And it is not just in
separated parental situations either.
>However, I still believe there are ways to do this
> other than jailing. Jailing never forces anything, and can only worsen the situation.
I think jail is fine for abusive situations. Neglecting children - as in
the current laws for neglect - is a form of abuse.
However, I agree that jail for failing to provide a certain standard of
living is not right.
Mark Jebens
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote on Fri, 29 May
1998 19:19:07 +0100:
We know that the National Organization for Whores...oops..Women won't
go for it. And as long as they support the current system, it will be
hard to change things.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6ko1ud$2...@nntp02.primenet.com>, Mark Jebens
<Xmje...@primenet.com> writes
Well if that's the situation where you are then that's the situation.
But please don't assume that is all (or even most) women, just as I
don't assume my ex was typical of all men.
Fair?
GJP
I guess you have not been following International Women's Conferences, the
United Nations, and the exporting of the feminazi doctrine globally since 1992?
And since you have not followed it or the impact it has had.....you just happen
to show up here spouting NOW propoganda....from the UK.
Are you gonna try to sell me a bridge too?
Greg Palumbo
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6kkpfm$ahj$1...@ecuador.it.earthlink.net>,
"Jean Coyle" <jean...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in message
> <6kield$7dp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >Speaking personally, I would agree to keep all records of all transactions
> involving support for my son and would be willing to provide them to a
> court>office on demand if I could just have the dignity of being able to
> actuallysupport my wonderful, beloved son instead of his worthless leech
> (actually,>'leech' is too kind a term, I prefer 'lamprey') of a mother. It
> shouldn't be>necessary to do this, but I would willingly agree to it
> (something, I might>add, which very few recipients of CS are willing to do).
>
> I would not only be willing to complete full quarterly fiscal disclosure I'd
> be thrilled if my ex were to pay people like the kid's doctors and daycare
> provider directly.
Yes, but you see, that's because you are a reasonable, decent human being (at
least you have all the appearences of being so). The problem is the people
who do not possess these characteristics are the ones making the policy.
> He wouldn't have to send me a direct dime ! What would the beef be then ?
None. You wanna have a go at talking some sense into my ex? Actually, I
wouldn't subject you to that. It would be like the old saying "Never try to
teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <356CF2AB...@geocities.com>,
almos...@geocities.com wrote:
>
>
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> > In article <6kamcg$n...@nntp02.primenet.com>,
> > Xmje...@primenet.com wrote:
> >
> > > Not only should the CP be accountable for the CS received, the CP
> > > should also be obligated to support the children with a set percentage
of
> > > their income, whether the kids need that much or not - just like the
NCP.
> >
> > How about this... Child support is paid into a separate, joint bank
account
> > from which money can be taken by either parent ONLY by mutual permission
and
> > ONLY for items directly related to the support of the child.
> >
etc.
> >
> > But ONLY things which are needed exclusively by the child and are things
the
> > parent wouldn't be buying anyway. In other words, no taking out money for
> > food, utilities, rent, car payments, insurance (apart from health
insurance
> > for the child)
> >
>
who
> pays for these? What if one parent refuses to share custody and either
willingly
> or forceably pays their half? The other parent is then accountable solely
for
> all food and extra costs in utilities 100% of the time? Granted, if JC
exists,
> each will provide food and utilities. But there are some instances where
one
> parent just refuses to share custody.
There's another word for a parent like that: deadbeat.
Cici in Texas
On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 19:16:34 GMT, jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
<snip>
>None. You wanna have a go at talking some sense into my ex? Actually, I
>wouldn't subject you to that. It would be like the old saying "Never try to
>teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".
To give credit where it's due, that's a quote from _Time Enough For
Love_ by Robert Heinlein. Many of these 'sayings' have been
reprinted in a volume entitled _The Notebooks of Lazarus Long_.
There's your literary trivia for today. Keep smiling, it confuses
people.
Cici in Texas
(Remove xspam from email address to reply)
brie
Cici...you are such a perky little thing. I just wanted to tell you that
you are a bright spot in this NG. I've been reading some of your posts
this morning and you just crack me up! Keep it up!!! Take care and have
a good one....
Shauna Curtin
Pretty good idea if neither of the parents live in poverty and if support and
survival are not synonymous. If CP's don't pay rent, buy groceries, have lights
on and stuff like that they likely aren't responsible enough to care for children.
I don't know about anyone else but I spend all my paycheque pretty regularly on
base necessities of life. This encompasses care of my children. It isn't my
toilet paper/your toilet paper/children's toilet paper, it is household toilet
paper. Same goes for luxuries like car, etc...You seem to be saying that housing,
food and the like are not things that children need and do not constitute
support. The NCP is as responsible as the CP for these items.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <35774455...@sprint.ca>,
You're absolutely right, when the NCP pays for his utilities, he has no right
to expect the CP to help him pay those bills. The same goes for CPs. Face
it, if you are a normal human being, then you will be paying for
rent/mortgage as well as utilities, groceries, car expenses, etc... A CP
would have to do this whether they had kids or not. If you want to argue
that the NCP should be responsible for a portion of this then you have to
first figure out how much that CP would be paying on their own and then
subtract that from what they actually pay. Then take the difference and cut
it in half. The result is the only thing which could even come close to
being considered as something the NCP should pay for.
On the other hand, I might argue that in cases where the CP has custody of
the kids because they fought for/demanded it, then they should take the
financial responsibility for their actions... unless the NCP is being
deprived of custody because he is a danger to his kids.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6l5v0c$cbp$1...@gte2.gte.net>,
ccl...@xspam.gte.net wrote:
>
> On Mon, 01 Jun 1998 19:16:34 GMT, jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >None. You wanna have a go at talking some sense into my ex? Actually, I
> >wouldn't subject you to that. It would be like the old saying "Never try to
> >teach a pig to sing, it wastes your time and annoys the pig".
>
> To give credit where it's due, that's a quote from _Time Enough For
> Love_ by Robert Heinlein. Many of these 'sayings' have been
> reprinted in a volume entitled _The Notebooks of Lazarus Long_.
>
> There's your literary trivia for today. Keep smiling, it confuses
> people.
I suspect that Heinlein is not the original source of the quote. I've heard
it attributed (in various forms) to people who predate Mr. Heinlein.