CS Raised if Standard of Living Changes Long After Divorce?
Hoffman
toward the bottom.... ;-):
I have read in several state publications that the main interest in
assessing Child Support, or deciding increases, is to ensure that the
standard of living for this child remains the same as it was before the
marriage...okay....
When my husband divorced the ex, and her wandering eye, he was working at a
casino and making about $8.00 an hour. He had not finished college, and was
in no position or attitude to return. Throughout the marriage, the ex had
bounced in and out of cashier jobs, but was mostly content to avoid the work
scene. They divorced in 1993.
A year later, he got offered a better casino position and moved to another
city...where I soon met him. He was making more like $25K and working
full-time at the casino. After about 8 or 10 months, after we got engaged,
I convinced him to go back to school and finish his BS. (Previously, he had
only taken about 25 or 30 hours of basic courses) We decided that, because
of his knack for technical stuff, that he should major in Computer Science.
My family and I have supported him and us (financially and emotionally) - we
were married June 1995 - ever since he started back to school. Neither his
parents, nor the ex, have had anything to do with this degree -- except
maybe make things complicated while we were trying to get him out of school.
Anyway, my husband is set to graduate from college with a BS in Computer
Science this December. After 4 years of struggling and doing without, we
have finally reached our goal. Keep in mind that even when he couldn't
work, we still paid the child support...it came out of my paycheck...blood,
sweat and tears...
So what I am saying is this...After he graduates, my husband will finally be
in line for a much better paying job that he has ever known -- this is what
we have scraped and worked for...But I am sure, that as soon as the ex
catches wind of his new-found success that she will be right in line for
"HER SHARE" of the success...under the guise of more Child Support. Now why
in the world should they be entitled to something that they only worked to
discourage...
In the meantime, the ex has remarried and is enjoying more money in her
pocket...only problem is that he is an OTR driver, so she still has plenty
of time on her hands to harass us...
So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this??? She
had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
more about this. This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
naught...what was the point????
Any ideas???
Nimue
: Here's a question - sorry this is a tad long...actually the question is more
First off, I suggest talking to your public officials if her new husband's
income isn't being considered. Your's were, and so should his. People
will argue if new spouse's income should be consider overall... but you
did make the point of mentioning that you paid the support while your
husband was in college, and she has remarried and enjoying more money.
Next, is it fair? You can look at it many different ways. Is it fair to
the CP, the NCP, and the child.
Let me tell you... I finished my degree in Computer Science last year. I
went from making min. to making decent money within five years (poverty to
"Upper Middle Income"). Would it be fair for me to expect the same amount
of support based on me making min. and my youngest's father making well
over $60,000/yr?
If you live in a State that considers both bio-parent's income then when
the income of the CP increase it could decrease support when the NCP
doesn't change, and when the income of the NCP increase it could increase
support when the CP doesn't change.
I say yes that it is fair.
Now, if you live in a State that doesn't consider both parent's incomes,
then NO it isn't fair. Both parent are financially responsible not just
one.
As far as her new husband's income... once again it is a toss up. Which
way should we have it? If the CP re-marries should the new spouse's
income be considered? I see many step-parents and NCP who are re-married
complain about this. It seems as if many don't what the income of the new
spouse considered as long as it isn't the new spouse of the CP.
So it's a toss-up just like above.
So what is fair... what should be fair is both parents are treated the
same... no matter if they are male or female... no matter which one
remarries... what is good for one should be good for the other.
Tracy
http://www.teleport.com/~nimue/index.html
My peace... traveling anywhere that I can reach within a four hour period
of time. My medium... my car (watch out for that white car).
My pleasure... taking tons of pictures. My freedom... the State of
Oregon and all it's wonders....
**** spamguard in place! to email me: nimue at teleport dot com ****
Victoria Lee Hirt
wrote:
-=>So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this??? She
-=>had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
-=>more about this. This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
-=>wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
-=>naught...what was the point????
Has his child's needs changed during the course of this time? Is the
money adquate to meet those needs and have them live in the style the
FATHER wants them to?
Does your husband have a close relationship with his child? The
child's NEEDS should come first.
Victoria "Lee"
kmichel...@mci2000.com
hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same. If
my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping and
saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart while
his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to the
movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
Kim
>So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this???
what we have worked for is for naught...what was the point????
>
>
>Any ideas???
>
>
kmichel...@mci2000.com
mine were so lucky lately!
Kim
kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
jill...@iname.com
>
> So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this??? She
> had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
> more about this. This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
> wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
> naught...what was the point????
>
> Any ideas???
I have questions. Why are you worrying about something you don't even
know for sure will happen? You refer his child as "the child" and said
there was talk of the mom's new husband adopting "the child". Does your
husband have a relationship with his child? Do you? Would he really
consider giving up his parental rights and let his ex's husband adopt?
Is this what you want? Is all of this about money? What about his child
and his relationship with his child? I'll ask what Victoris did, is the
CS that is being paid now sufficient for his childs needs (after all
that is what CS is for, his child)?
Child support can be adjusted up or down but it takes going back to
court to ask that it be adjusted (either by her to raise it or by him to
lower it) which means showing financial proof on both sides that a
change is in order.
Is life fair? Not always. Doing what is in the best interests of his
child is what's important.
Jillian
Michael Van Dyke
>-=>So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this???
As I see it, the children of a divorce are the losers. I have two children,
and am the NCP. I will never pay any more CS than what I had set in the
divorce decree almost 5 years ago, but what I have done is take care of
thier needs on my own. I pay about half of my income to provide for them.
I watch them 5 days a week and have them alternating weekends. My income is
almost three times as much as it was at the time of the divorce. What
matters most to ME is my children. In the Hoffman's post, no mention of the
visitation was mentioned. Which can lead one to assume that he doesn't have
any. If that is so, what is the reasons. There are many veriables that are
at work that have to be taken into consideration. On the surface it seems
that his ex is a money hungry, vindictive woman, who will pay in the end.
The children know more that what parents think. Mine see right thru the
mother, they love her, but in the end she will pay the cost of her ways.
I will leave with this thought" what are children see and are exposed to,
are what they will grow up to be."
Pugg
of talk about child support here. I was hoping it was more support for
being a stepparent.
I visited a group, I forget what it was called but it had child support in
it. The people there devote the newsgroup to complaining about paying
support. I think you should go there.
P.S some of the othere posts appear encouraging.
Sorry if I'm starting off on a kind of negative.....but this subject just
brings out the worst in me. I revieve support for my son from my ex, and
I'm tired of having to defend that and being accused of things like
"gambling it away," etc.
Maria
Hoffman wrote in message ...
Vicki Robinson
>I just started reading this newsgroup recently. I hope there is not a lot
>of talk about child support here. I was hoping it was more support for
>being a stepparent.
>I visited a group, I forget what it was called but it had child support in
>it. The people there devote the newsgroup to complaining about paying
>support. I think you should go there.
>P.S some of the othere posts appear encouraging.
>Sorry if I'm starting off on a kind of negative.....but this subject just
>brings out the worst in me. I revieve support for my son from my ex, and
>I'm tired of having to defend that and being accused of things like
>"gambling it away," etc.
>
Hi, Maria,
Please note that the original note was posted to
alt.support.step-parents (where you and I are reading it), but also
alt.support.divorce and alt.child-support. This topic is only
moderately appropriate for a.s.s-p, you're right, but cross-posting is
the bane of Usenet.
I don't know what newsreader you're using, but you can usually check
to see what newsgroups any one post is posted to, and you can also
usually post your response only to the groups you want and make sure
that follow-ups to your post only go to the group(s) you want. You'll
have to check to see what is the case for your newsreader; I still use
trn for Unix systems, which is great if you're kind of geeky.
Vicki
--
Visit our wedding at http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/wedding.html and
sign our guest book! The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can
be found at http://www.urbanlegends.com. Take a look, if you
have a week to spare.
Hoffman
Ok, I won't go into too much...and the reason I refer to her as "the child"
is that I would prefer not putting too many names and specifics here...I'd
like to protect the innocent, if you will. To make a day-long story
short...the ex called one day and informed my husband that she and her
fiance or husband (not sure at the time) would be or just had moved to South
Carolina and there wasn't anything we could do about it. As it was we were
about 6 hours from them, now we are more like 12 or 15, I think. My husband
had to move out of state with his job, before he met me, so they weren't in
the same area to begin with. We didn't have the money to take anybody to
court over anything, and doing so would have certainly prompted her to have
taken us back to court for something or another...we have tried not to rock
the boat, if we could help it.
The reality of the situation is that the ex has been so spiteful and bitter
about this that she makes it extremely difficult - if not impossible to
have visitation. Considering the fact that we haven't had a "vacation"
since our honeymoon - because we are working and scraping to put him through
school - we can hardly afford to trek to South Carolina for an
afternoon...and the ex insists on being present during ANY visitation.
Let's not forget that the ex has totally poisoned her mind and convinced her
that we are all evil -- and has plenty of "stage lines" that she has been
given of things to say and ask us..."Why do you hate my Mom?" "My Mommy
needs more money, why don't you send us money?" Not to use this as a
cop-out, but it is often too much to take, and any confrontation with the ex
would be worse for "the child" than anything...trust me.
We are not trying to be mean or selfish - it just seems frustrating that all
the while my husband has been working to improve himself - while still
paying support...that she will be able to sit back and threaten taking us
back to court and then serving us the papers. I'm telling you, she just
loves to make us miserable -- and this is the FIRST legitimate thing she has
EVER had on us. THAT is the reason for my concern.
She calls and writes constant letters about "taking us back into court" for
this or that -- and calling him a DEADBEAT DAD for any reason. And to tell
you the truth, I have had it with not being able to answer my own phone for
fear of her threats. Trust me, she will take everything she can get...and
it is just frustrating to me because if they had never divorced...he would
STILL be working at that casino - for maybe $10.00 an hour now...but
certainly not the life-change we have accomplished...and she will benefit, I
know it!
And as far as what's best for the child...my husband's parents spent a lot
of time caring for her before the ex remarried and would take her back in a
heartbeat. We would love for the grandparents to take her, but that's even
harder that us trying to get sole custody...especially in a state like
Mississippi - where the Mom's always right...no matter what!
-Sorry, looks like this is a long one again...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hoffman wrote in message ...
(snip)>
almost...@geocities.com
"Pugg" <ellio...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> I just started reading this newsgroup recently. I hope there is not a lot
> of talk about child support here. I was hoping it was more support for
> being a stepparent.
> I visited a group, I forget what it was called but it had child support in
> it. The people there devote the newsgroup to complaining about paying
> support. I think you should go there.
> P.S some of the othere posts appear encouraging.
> Sorry if I'm starting off on a kind of negative.....but this subject just
> brings out the worst in me. I revieve support for my son from my ex, and
> I'm tired of having to defend that and being accused of things like
> "gambling it away," etc.
>
>
You will have to defend yourself quite often on a.c-s. If you don't have
nerves of steel then this might not be the place for you. You will find
here, those that agree and those that don't...vehemently. :-)
Hoffman wrote in message ...
> >Anyway, my husband is set to graduate from college with a BS in Computer
> >Science this December. After 4 years of struggling and doing without, we
> >have finally reached our goal. Keep in mind that even when he couldn't
> >work, we still paid the child support...it came out of my paycheck...blood,
> >sweat and tears...
> >
> >So what I am saying is this...After he graduates, my husband will finally
> be
> >in line for a much better paying job that he has ever known -- this is what
> >we have scraped and worked for...But I am sure, that as soon as the ex
> >catches wind of his new-found success that she will be right in line for
> >"HER SHARE" of the success...under the guise of more Child Support. Now
> why
> >in the world should they be entitled to something that they only worked to
> >discourage...
> >
> >In the meantime, the ex has remarried and is enjoying more money in her
> >pocket...only problem is that he is an OTR driver, so she still has plenty
> >of time on her hands to harass us...
> >
> >So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this??? She
> >had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
> >more about this. This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
> >wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
> >naught...what was the point????
> >
> >
> >Any ideas???
> >
> >
>
>
--
Char
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Andrew&Posey
POV, too...
It's like, we don't begrudge the CHILD having the money & the improved
lifestyle... it's the fact that the PWC always manages to take her/his share
that I resent!
In our situation, when their mother asks for money to buy them shoes,
clothing, etc - we find out what they need and buy it for them, because she
has proven herself untrustworthy over the amount she says she needs ($45)
and the amount she spends ($7 at Woolworths).
Posey
wor...@being.happy
You wrote a nice scenario for a novel but you don't even have a
PROBLEM yet!
Write back to us when you have a real problem.
Trent
On Sat, 15 Aug 1998 19:19:53 GMT, "Hoffman" <ueho...@cc.memphis.edu>
wrote:
>Here's a question - sorry this is a tad long...actually the question is more
Stephen Lajoie
In article <tblB1.396$Je.14...@news2.mco.bellsouth.net>,
Hoffman <ueho...@cc.memphis.edu> wrote:
>So is this fair???
What's fair? Depends on your state. Do you mean to ask
what would I do if I were king? Nobody cares about what
I'd do.
In my state, and another that I've lived in, when the
income of either parent changes, through change of job
or through marriage, CS is adjusted accordingly.
So while it would go down because his ex got married, it
would go up because he has a better job. Doesn't matter
that he paid while he went to school because they would
have nailed him with the impunded income rule - a man
can't lower his income voluntarily even if it means more
CS down the line.
> -Is there anything we can do to prevent this???
No. But if she doesn't find out, it doesn't get
adjusted.
> She
>had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
>more about this.
That would require:
1) Your husband giving up his parental rights. Oddly, courts frown on
this. The adoption & parental rights laws are rather inconsistant.
2) You're husbands ex would give up the CS.
>This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
>wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
>naught...what was the point????
Well, in the LONG run, you're better off. Things are not going to be
good until his child is an adult, or even older. Where I live, the
CP can sue the NCP to pay for college! Rather odd, since if the parents
never divorced that "right" to a parent paid college education wouldn't
exist.
>Any ideas???
I can't think of any.
--
Steve La Joie | "I think the biggest weapon of the totalitarian state
laj...@eskimo.com | is the oppression of the individual by economic means.
| In this manner, the people are made to fall in line
| with the principles of the government" A. Einstein
Stephen Lajoie
>Is WHAT fair???
It was a whole morality question about effort, work, lazyness, greed, and
the redistribution of wealth. It would have been a great one for my
philosophy of morals class. I thought it was a good question, but the
"law" is what determins what "fair" is. What morality teaches us is should
we change the law.
>You wrote a nice scenario for a novel but you don't even have a
>PROBLEM yet!
>
>Write back to us when you have a real problem.
>
>
>Trent
Ya know, Trent, you don't have to read every post. She was just venting
about how unfair the law can be. I don't think she expected a real
solution.
Beverly
> My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5 an
> hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same. If
> my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
> should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping and
> saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart while
> his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to the
> movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
> depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
This is exactly why there needs to be a "cap" on child support
awards... the disparity of incomes throughout the nation. The
difference between a Wal-Mart pair of jeans and a name brand pair of
jeans is discretionary.
While I would agree that the CP should never have to watch his/her
child go without, especially if the NCP is making some big bucks, I also
ask myself if children are entitled to extras simply because one of
their parents rakes in the dough. The answer, IMO, is no. I'd like to
see the parent WITH the extra money try and "even things out" when there
are children from two marriages/relationships, but that is a matter of
the relationship between the children and that parent... one where the
other parent needs to butt out. Sure, the kids can be emotionally
marred by a wealthy parent only alotting them extreme basics while
lavishing custodial children with extras, but that is a matter of their
relationship. A court order cannot fix that. All the money in the
world cannot fix that.
Modifications should not be granted, IMO, solely because of an
increase in parental income (unless the parent whose income increased
was paying less than 50% of the child's needs). I'd like to see courts
ask if and how the children's costs have changed... and yes, some of
this may be due to inflation... instead of asking how a parent's income
has changed.
As with all things, there are exceptions (i.e. the children were
below poverty level before the divorce and had to remain there
post-divorce)... but no parent should be held liable for discretionary
expenditures simply because they can better provide them now.
...Beverly
almost...@geocities.com
I agree here Beverly. You cannot force a parent to love their children. You
can only force them to take the responsibility of providing for their needs.
The rest must be given freely, or it is of little value.
> Modifications should not be granted, IMO, solely because of an
> increase in parental income (unless the parent whose income increased
> was paying less than 50% of the child's needs). I'd like to see courts
> ask if and how the children's costs have changed... and yes, some of
> this may be due to inflation... instead of asking how a parent's income
> has changed.
>
> As with all things, there are exceptions (i.e. the children were
> below poverty level before the divorce and had to remain there
> post-divorce)... but no parent should be held liable for discretionary
> expenditures simply because they can better provide them now.
>
> ...Beverly
>
Wildman
the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
in, pre-divorce.
Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
When a person decides to severe a marriage...that person decides whether
they are the proper custodial parent or not. That person then seeks to
convince the Court that they are the proper custodial parent. Sometime
during this decision making process, the final custodial parent should have
taken all this into consideration, and should have made other arrangements
to support the children, with the C/S awarded at the time of the Decree.
Now that I am divorced, should I pursue further studies or whatever, to
secure better employment...how is the ex even remotely entitled to this
extra income?
This is an interesting topic, as it does irritate me reading some of the
stuff in here I do. There have even been people who posted in here, who lost
their butt in the trial, then started working overtime to supplement the
lost income, their ex got the support raised, the NCP loses more of their
butt, gets a better job only for the cycle to repeat itself. Is this even
remotely fair?
You people with the kids need to remember the ex needs to live as well. If
the ex wins the lottery after the divorce...where in any decency are you
entitled to even the smallest penny of it?
With some of the crap some of these states do, it is not a wonder why there
is such a thing as "dead beat dads". Though the meaning of the word does for
the most part encompass the lame ex's...the system does make some of the
better ex's into the "dead beats".
Wildman
kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5 an
>hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same. If
>my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
>should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping and
>saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart while
>his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to the
>movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>
>Kim
>
>
>>So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this???
>
>what we have worked for is for naught...what was the point????
>>
>>
>>Any ideas???
>>
>>
>
>
Wildman
Wildman
Beverly wrote in message <35D7040E...@hiwaay.net>...
>kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
>
>> My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5
an
>> hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same.
If
>> my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
>> should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping
and
>> saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart
while
>> his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to
the
>> movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>> depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>
> This is exactly why there needs to be a "cap" on child support
>awards... the disparity of incomes throughout the nation. The
>difference between a Wal-Mart pair of jeans and a name brand pair of
>jeans is discretionary.
>
> While I would agree that the CP should never have to watch his/her
>child go without, especially if the NCP is making some big bucks, I also
>ask myself if children are entitled to extras simply because one of
>their parents rakes in the dough. The answer, IMO, is no. I'd like to
>see the parent WITH the extra money try and "even things out" when there
>are children from two marriages/relationships, but that is a matter of
>the relationship between the children and that parent... one where the
>other parent needs to butt out. Sure, the kids can be emotionally
>marred by a wealthy parent only alotting them extreme basics while
>lavishing custodial children with extras, but that is a matter of their
>relationship. A court order cannot fix that. All the money in the
>world cannot fix that.
>
Victoria Lee Hirt
wrote:
-=>Perhaps some more detail...
-=>
-=>Ok, I won't go into too much...and the reason I refer to her as "the child"
-=>is that I would prefer not putting too many names and specifics here...I'd
-=>like to protect the innocent, if you will. To make a day-long story
-=>short...the ex called one day and informed my husband that she and her
-=>fiance or husband (not sure at the time) would be or just had moved to South
-=>Carolina and there wasn't anything we could do about it. As it was we were
-=>about 6 hours from them, now we are more like 12 or 15, I think. My husband
-=>had to move out of state with his job, before he met me, so they weren't in
-=>the same area to begin with. We didn't have the money to take anybody to
-=>court over anything, and doing so would have certainly prompted her to have
-=>taken us back to court for something or another...we have tried not to rock
-=>the boat, if we could help it.
-=>
-=>The reality of the situation is that the ex has been so spiteful and bitter
-=>about this that she makes it extremely difficult - if not impossible to
-=>have visitation. Considering the fact that we haven't had a "vacation"
-=>since our honeymoon - because we are working and scraping to put him through
-=>school - we can hardly afford to trek to South Carolina for an
-=>afternoon...and the ex insists on being present during ANY visitation.
-=>Let's not forget that the ex has totally poisoned her mind and convinced her
-=>that we are all evil -- and has plenty of "stage lines" that she has been
-=>given of things to say and ask us..."Why do you hate my Mom?" "My Mommy
-=>needs more money, why don't you send us money?" Not to use this as a
-=>cop-out, but it is often too much to take, and any confrontation with the ex
-=>would be worse for "the child" than anything...trust me.
-=>
-=>We are not trying to be mean or selfish - it just seems frustrating that all
-=>the while my husband has been working to improve himself - while still
-=>paying support...that she will be able to sit back and threaten taking us
-=>back to court and then serving us the papers. I'm telling you, she just
-=>loves to make us miserable -- and this is the FIRST legitimate thing she has
-=>EVER had on us. THAT is the reason for my concern.
-=>
-=>She calls and writes constant letters about "taking us back into court" for
-=>this or that -- and calling him a DEADBEAT DAD for any reason. And to tell
-=>you the truth, I have had it with not being able to answer my own phone for
-=>fear of her threats. Trust me, she will take everything she can get...and
-=>it is just frustrating to me because if they had never divorced...he would
-=>STILL be working at that casino - for maybe $10.00 an hour now...but
-=>certainly not the life-change we have accomplished...and she will benefit, I
-=>know it!
-=>
-=>And as far as what's best for the child...my husband's parents spent a lot
-=>of time caring for her before the ex remarried and would take her back in a
-=>heartbeat. We would love for the grandparents to take her, but that's even
-=>harder that us trying to get sole custody...especially in a state like
-=>Mississippi - where the Mom's always right...no matter what!
I really feel sorry for that poor little girl. It seems like no one
really wants this child and all she is is a pawn between two bitter
selfish angry women so they can get what they want.
Didn't you realize he had a daughter when you married him? Didn't it
ever occur to you SHE might NEED to spend time with her father?
"Not to use this as a cop-out, but it is often too much to take, and
any confrontation with the ex would be worse for "the child" than
anything...trust me."
"Too much to take" YOU are supposed to be an adult! So what if the
child says these things? If your husband spends enough time with her
she'll get to know him.
BTW - Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you should take your
vacation near where the little girl lives?
Victoria "Lee"
kmichel...@mci2000.com
before the divorce and afterwards dad (or mom, as the case may be) ends up
with an excellent job making a lot of money while the child still suffers?
Do you still think it's right?
Kim
Wildman wrote in message <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>...
>>My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5 an
>>hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same.
If
>>my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
>>should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping
and
>>saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart while
>>his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to
the
>>movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>>depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>>
kmichel...@mci2000.com
regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example! I
personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last near
as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
Kim
almost...@geocities.com wrote in message
<6r7bib$303$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <35D7040E...@hiwaay.net>,
> Beverly <Bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
>>
>> > My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5
an
>> > hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same.
If
>> > my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality,
why
>> > should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping
and
>> > saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart
while
>> > his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to
the
>> > movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>> > depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>>
>> This is exactly why there needs to be a "cap" on child support
>> awards... the disparity of incomes throughout the nation. The
>> difference between a Wal-Mart pair of jeans and a name brand pair of
>> jeans is discretionary.
>>
>> While I would agree that the CP should never have to watch his/her
>> child go without, especially if the NCP is making some big bucks, I also
>> ask myself if children are entitled to extras simply because one of
>> their parents rakes in the dough. The answer, IMO, is no. I'd like to
>> see the parent WITH the extra money try and "even things out" when there
>> are children from two marriages/relationships, but that is a matter of
>> the relationship between the children and that parent... one where the
>> other parent needs to butt out. Sure, the kids can be emotionally
>> marred by a wealthy parent only alotting them extreme basics while
>> lavishing custodial children with extras, but that is a matter of their
>> relationship. A court order cannot fix that. All the money in the
>> world cannot fix that.
>>
>
>I agree here Beverly. You cannot force a parent to love their children.
You
>can only force them to take the responsibility of providing for their
needs.
>The rest must be given freely, or it is of little value.
>
>> Modifications should not be granted, IMO, solely because of an
>> increase in parental income (unless the parent whose income increased
>> was paying less than 50% of the child's needs). I'd like to see courts
>> ask if and how the children's costs have changed... and yes, some of
>> this may be due to inflation... instead of asking how a parent's income
>> has changed.
>>
>> As with all things, there are exceptions (i.e. the children were
>> below poverty level before the divorce and had to remain there
>> post-divorce)... but no parent should be held liable for discretionary
>> expenditures simply because they can better provide them now.
>>
>> ...Beverly
>>
>
>
Jonathan Meltzer
>You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
>the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
>to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
>in, pre-divorce.
>
>Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
>divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
>support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
>
If you were still married, and got a better paying job, would you keep
your children in the same living standard they were previously in?
--
Jon Meltzer
jmel...@world.std.com
janelaw
>
> Here's a question - sorry this is a tad long...actually the question is more
> toward the bottom.... ;-):
>
> I have read in several state publications that the main interest in
> assessing Child Support, or deciding increases, is to ensure that the
> standard of living for this child remains the same as it was before the
> marriage...okay....
>
>
it: the children's standard of living is not supposed to be
harmed by the divorce. If you stayed married, your children's
standard of living would improve with your increase in income.
Lots of times people have kids while they are still in school or
entry level jobs. By having sex or signing adoption papers, you
commit yourself to providing for your children to the best of
your ability.
Our society wants children to be raised in stable families.
Divorce is permissible, but not encouraged. The court's major
concern is that the children you already have do not suffer
because of the divorce. When people go on to subsequent
marriages, the original children are not supposed to be harmed
by that choice, either. You are not supposed to have more
children if you can't keep your commitment to the ones you
already have.
jill...@iname.com
> Perhaps some more detail...
>
> Ok, I won't go into too much...and the reason I refer to her as "the child"
> is that I would prefer not putting too many names and specifics here...I'd
> like to protect the innocent, if you will.
Well, you could have done the same by calling her "my husbands
daughter". But from what you write below it seems clear that you don't
consider her a part of him.
> To make a day-long story
> short...the ex called one day and informed my husband that she and her
> fiance or husband (not sure at the time) would be or just had moved to South
> Carolina and there wasn't anything we could do about it. As it was we were
> about 6 hours from them, now we are more like 12 or 15, I think. My husband
> had to move out of state with his job, before he met me, so they weren't in
> the same area to begin with. We didn't have the money to take anybody to
> court over anything, and doing so would have certainly prompted her to have
> taken us back to court for something or another...we have tried not to rock
> the boat, if we could help it.
>
> The reality of the situation is that the ex has been so spiteful and bitter
> about this that she makes it extremely difficult - if not impossible to
> have visitation.
Spiteful and bitter about what exactly? I don't think we're hearing
enough of the whole story to truly understand why he does not see his
daughter. Maybe you could put aside some of this new money he's earning
to buy a plane ticket for her to come see both of you.
> Considering the fact that we haven't had a "vacation"
> since our honeymoon - because we are working and scraping to put him through
> school - we can hardly afford to trek to South Carolina for an
> afternoon...and the ex insists on being present during ANY visitation.
Why? What does the visitation order state? The ex is just controlling
the situation and you both are allowing it.
> Let's not forget that the ex has totally poisoned her mind and convinced her
> that we are all evil -- and has plenty of "stage lines" that she has been
> given of things to say and ask us..."Why do you hate my Mom?" "My Mommy
> needs more money, why don't you send us money?"
I agree that this is not good. But, how do you plan to counter these
statements if you both never spend time with his daughter? She has the
right to know her father. She has the right to know both her parents and
make her own decision about each of them.
Not to use this as a
> cop-out, but it is often too much to take, and any confrontation with the ex
> would be worse for "the child" than anything...trust me.
This is a cop out. She is his daughter. What are his thoughts and
feelings on not being able to see and visit her? He has rights, he
should fight for them.
> We are not trying to be mean or selfish - it just seems frustrating that all
> the while my husband has been working to improve himself - while still
> paying support...that she will be able to sit back and threaten taking us
> back to court and then serving us the papers. I'm telling you, she just
> loves to make us miserable -- and this is the FIRST legitimate thing she has
> EVER had on us. THAT is the reason for my concern.
>
> She calls and writes constant letters about "taking us back into court" for
> this or that -- and calling him a DEADBEAT DAD for any reason.
And I'm sure you have documentation of all the CS payments that have
been made on time?? She can threaten all she wants to but it won't hold
up in court if what you can back it up. Why is your husband still
allowing her this much control over the situation?
And to tell
> you the truth, I have had it with not being able to answer my own phone for
> fear of her threats.
What? Why do you allow her this power over you. All you have to do is
hang up if her call becomes abusive. She obviously knows she is getting
to you so she keeps it up. Where is your own strength?
Trust me, she will take everything she can get...and
> it is just frustrating to me because if they had never divorced...he would
> STILL be working at that casino - for maybe $10.00 an hour now...but
> certainly not the life-change we have accomplished...and she will benefit, I
> know it!
So now you are giving yourself all the credit for his improvement? I'm
sure you are proud of him, but he is *earning his degree himself*. By
you stating that he never would have done it without you isn't saying
much for your opinion of him.
> And as far as what's best for the child...my husband's parents spent a lot
> of time caring for her before the ex remarried and would take her back in a
> heartbeat. We would love for the grandparents to take her,
This is so sad. Why doesn't your husband *want* his daughter. From your
other post he seemed willing to give up his parental rights for
adoption, now you're saying *we* would love for the grandparents to take
her. What kind of father is he that he does not even want his daughter
with him? Doesn't want her with his ex, but he doesn't want her either!
Is this really the way he feels or is this just the way *you* feel about
the situation? You knew he had a daughter when you married him. It
sounds like it would be more convenient for *you* if the daughter just
disappeared so *you* could enjoy the benefits of your husbands new
earning potential.
You said you are not trying to be mean or selfish, but that is how your
post is coming across. His daughter is the one that's losing, big time.
Jillian
but that's even
> harder that us trying to get sole custody...especially in a state like
> Mississippi - where the Mom's always right...no matter what!
>
> -Sorry, looks like this is a long one again...
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Hoffman wrote in message ...
>
> (snip)>
Lori moffit
will lift the child above poverty. There is no law which forces parents
in an intact family to give their child the luxuries of the wealthy,
even if the parents are wealthy, and so non custodial parents should not
be held to that standard either. As my parents used to say, "if we
suddenly became stinking rich, we *still* would not buy you a car, or
designer clothing. You would have to learn to earn luxuries for
yourself."
Lori
kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
>
> What do you do in a situation where the child was living in extreme poverty
> before the divorce and afterwards dad (or mom, as the case may be) ends up
> with an excellent job making a lot of money while the child still suffers?
> Do you still think it's right?
>
> Kim
>
> Wildman wrote in message <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>...
> >You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
> >the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
> >to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
> >in, pre-divorce.
> >
> >Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision
> to
> >divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> >support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
> >
> >>My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5 an
> >>hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same.
> If
> >>my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality, why
> >>should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping
> and
> >>saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart while
> >>his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to
> the
> >>movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
> >>depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
> >>
Wildman
Broadway Southwest?
Materialist...
Wildman
kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>Oh, by the way, anyone with any common sense should know but I'll state it
>regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example! I
>personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last near
>as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
>
>Kim
>
>almost...@geocities.com wrote in message
><6r7bib$303$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>In article <35D7040E...@hiwaay.net>,
>> Beverly <Bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>>> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
>>>
>>> > My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making
$5
>an
>>> > hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the
same.
>If
>>> > my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality,
>why
>>> > should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without
"scrimping
>and
>>> > saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart
>while
>>> > his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and
to
>the
>>> > movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>>> > depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>>>
kmichel...@mci2000.com
up -- my kids don't get to wear Levis because my wal-mart doesn't sell them!
Since you're resorting to name calling -- takes one to know one.
Wildman wrote in message <6r7v0j$98v$1...@supernews.com>...
kmichel...@mci2000.com
would be the first to tell you that they don't have the time to investigate
living standards before, during, and after a marriage for a child support
case!
Kim
Lori moffit wrote in message <35D776BC...@bignet.net>...
>> >Wildman
>> >
>> >kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>> >>My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making $5
an
>> >>hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the same.
>> If
>> >>my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality,
why
>> >>should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without "scrimping
>> and
>> >>saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart
while
>> >>his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and to
>> the
>> >>movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
>> >>depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>> >>
Luke Skywalker
Science,
Software Engineering. Most of my degree was earned before she came into
my
life. The last portion of it comes after she abandoned me. She left me
for
another man. She denies it yet rushes the divorce so she can officially
start
her new relationship with HIM. Since I am unemployed (the reason I went
back to
finish my degree) her attorney based my CS on an imaginary figure from
the
past. Since it was only $180 and I don't want to hurt my son, I agreed
to her
blackmail. I am in no position to fight and could not afford the house
even if
I did win. My option was to give her just about everything, maintaining
only
"equal" custody of my son. I know that she will want a piece of my
future since
she doesn't want to work any more, but I have other things in mind. I
will use
that new income to buy a new house, find a new mother for my son, and
take him
away from her. She doesn't love him as much as I do anyway, she
admitted that
to me. Everything I do is for my son, and when that day comes, I will
support
him with much more than the $180 a month because I will have him back
and give
him everything he would have had if she hadn't left me. But nothing for
her.
She made it clear that she wants nothing to do with me.
Luke
Hoffman wrote:
> Here's a question - sorry this is a tad long...actually the question is more
> toward the bottom.... ;-):
>
> I have read in several state publications that the main interest in
> assessing Child Support, or deciding increases, is to ensure that the
> standard of living for this child remains the same as it was before the
> marriage...okay....
>
> When my husband divorced the ex, and her wandering eye, he was working at a
> casino and making about $8.00 an hour. He had not finished college, and was
> in no position or attitude to return. Throughout the marriage, the ex had
> bounced in and out of cashier jobs, but was mostly content to avoid the work
> scene. They divorced in 1993.
>
> A year later, he got offered a better casino position and moved to another
> city...where I soon met him. He was making more like $25K and working
> full-time at the casino. After about 8 or 10 months, after we got engaged,
> I convinced him to go back to school and finish his BS. (Previously, he had
> only taken about 25 or 30 hours of basic courses) We decided that, because
> of his knack for technical stuff, that he should major in Computer Science.
> My family and I have supported him and us (financially and emotionally) - we
> were married June 1995 - ever since he started back to school. Neither his
> parents, nor the ex, have had anything to do with this degree -- except
> maybe make things complicated while we were trying to get him out of school.
>
> Anyway, my husband is set to graduate from college with a BS in Computer
> Science this December. After 4 years of struggling and doing without, we
> have finally reached our goal. Keep in mind that even when he couldn't
> work, we still paid the child support...it came out of my paycheck...blood,
> sweat and tears...
>
> So what I am saying is this...After he graduates, my husband will finally be
> in line for a much better paying job that he has ever known -- this is what
> we have scraped and worked for...But I am sure, that as soon as the ex
> catches wind of his new-found success that she will be right in line for
> "HER SHARE" of the success...under the guise of more Child Support. Now why
> in the world should they be entitled to something that they only worked to
> discourage...
>
> In the meantime, the ex has remarried and is enjoying more money in her
> pocket...only problem is that he is an OTR driver, so she still has plenty
> of time on her hands to harass us...
>
> So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this??? She
> had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
> more about this. This woman is so greedy, I can see her taking us to the
> wall with this one....and all the while, what we have worked for is for
lbdcre...@juno.com
"Michael Van Dyke" <jmva...@alltel.net> wrote:
> I have two children,
> and am the NCP. I will never pay any more CS than what I had set in the
> divorce decree almost 5 years ago, but what I have done is take care of
> thier needs on my own. I pay about half of my income to provide for them.
> I watch them 5 days a week and have them alternating weekends. My income is
> almost three times as much as it was at the time of the divorce. What
> matters most to ME is my children.
Okay, so how do you cheer in a posting???? Michael, that's the most
beautiful thing I've heard on here in ages...bravo!
I was just sitting here discussing it with my DH. We pay an outragiously
small amount of child support ($100 per month). For some wierd reason,
that's what DH's ex wants. She's never asked for any extra money and never
will. But because we're aware (and mildly ashamed!) that we pay such a small
amount, we are always eager to make up for it in other areas. When we have
visitations, we have no qualms about spending hundreds of dollars on
amusement parks, waterslides, recreational activities, museums, etc. We feel
completely free to do anything that we can think of that my stepson will
enjoy. We stay on top of what clothes he needs and pick up anything that Mom
can suggest. We try to drop a little extra money into savings bonds for him
or send extra money to enroll him in sports teams or swimming lessons that he
might not otherwise get. We don't buy lots of toys (although he doesn't do
*too* badly!) or superficial stuff (like the tear-away pants or the Air
Jordans), but we make plenty of stops to the used bookstores and include a
healthy portion of nature videos in with the Disney ones we buy. Stuff like
that.
We *love* doing this! It makes both of us feel better to be able to send a
little extra money his way when we have it. It seems to me that it would be
unfair for us to hang on to all of our excess money while Mom's trying to
struggle through with the legal $100 monthly support! We don't have lots of
money, to be sure, but we get the same kick out of being able to enroll the
kidling in soccer as we do paying off our phone or cable bills!
Of course, maybe if we got out more....
> On the surface it seems
> that his ex is a money hungry, vindictive woman, who will pay in the end.
Actually, I didn't notice anywhere where the original poster said that the
biomom has asked for anything...just that she'd heard that child support is
based on the NCP's income. I could be wrong, though...it's been several
hours since I read the original post.
lil
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
almost...@geocities.com
"kmichel...@MCI2000.com" <kimc...@beauti.com> wrote:
> Fine, but what you run into there is -- who will enforce such laws? CSE
> would be the first to tell you that they don't have the time to investigate
> living standards before, during, and after a marriage for a child support
> case!
>
> Kim
>
If child support was set on a basic amount and according to incomes with a
cap, it shouldn't be a problem to reach the level of keeping the child out of
poverty but without becoming ridiculously excessive to support a particular
lifestyle.
They don't need to see the child's living standards, they just adjust
according to poverty levels and need to know the incomes of each household
and number of people in each household.
> >> >>>So is this fair??? -Is there anything we can do to prevent this???
> >> >>
> >> >>what we have worked for is for naught...what was the point????
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Any ideas???
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
>
>
--
Char
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
almost...@geocities.com
"Wildman" <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> What the heck does it matter if it is a pair of Levi jeans from Wal-Mart or
> Broadway Southwest?
>
> Materialist...
>
> Wildman
>
Could it be.....the price?
> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
> >Oh, by the way, anyone with any common sense should know but I'll state it
> >regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example! I
> >personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last near
> >as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
> >
> >Kim
> >
> >almost...@geocities.com wrote in message
> ><6r7bib$303$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >>In article <35D7040E...@hiwaay.net>,
> >> Beverly <Bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> >>> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's making
> $5
> >an
> >>> > hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the
> same.
> >If
> >>> > my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in reality,
> >why
> >>> > should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without
> "scrimping
> >and
> >>> > saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from Wal-Mart
> >while
> >>> > his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating and
> to
> >the
> >>> > movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I guess it
> >>> > depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
> >>>
Wildman
materialistic things should not be an issue
I am sorry you perceived it as name calling. I will try harder to send
complete messsages..
Where do you ever see a Wal-Mart that doesn't sell Levi's or Wranglers? I
have been into many Wal-Marts in many states, and they all sell at least
Wranglers.
Wildman
kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>It doesn't matter, that wasn't exactly the point. But, since you brought
it
>up -- my kids don't get to wear Levis because my wal-mart doesn't sell
them!
>
>Since you're resorting to name calling -- takes one to know one.
>
>Wildman wrote in message <6r7v0j$98v$1...@supernews.com>...
>>What the heck does it matter if it is a pair of Levi jeans from Wal-Mart
or
>>Broadway Southwest?
>>
>>Materialist...
>>
>>Wildman
>>
>>
Beverly
> Oh, by the way, anyone with any common sense should know but I'll state it
> regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example!
Definitely. I understood Wal-Mart to mean "discount store."
> I personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last near
> as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
Years ago, I bought my son some clothes at K-Mart and the hems
began coming out of some of the items in the first wash... I returned
them. There are laws in the uniform commercial code called
merchantability laws... and require goods to be useful for their
intended purpose. Now ALL clothing has a limited life, but if they
start coming apart very early in the stage of that life, return them.
At any rate... Let's say I buy jeans for my kids in August at
K-Mart. My kids are boys and, I suspect, even rougher on clothing than
many of their peers. My children's jeans have no problem getting
through the school year, and, at most, might be wearing in the knee.
Dependant on their growth, these jeans can either be patched or cut off
into shorts for the summer. I normally have to buy a bigger size in the
fall for my two little ones who are still growing quickly... so the
"cheap" jeans last the entire time they are in that size. We have no
NEED for them to last any longer.
My older son has finally quit being so hard on jeans. He can still
wear K-mart brand until he grows out of them... which takes about 2
years now. These K-Mart jeans are still in good enough condition to be
worn by his brothers when they become big enough, but I suspect they
will probably not last as long as they did with him. But still... the
hand-me-downs replace a purchase, so if I have to purchase new jeans
sooner, it is no different than purchasing them in the first place.
I have yet to see a situation where CHILDREN'S clothing NEEDS to
last for 5 years... simply because of growth; therefore, I see no need
to purchase clothes that WILL last that long. Once the need is there, I
see no problem paying a little more up front to decrease the cost
later... but that is more for adult clothing... and we will only have
that problem WITH OUR CHILDREN when they are close to being adults.
So buying clothes that "last longer" has no impact on my purchasing
for the children just yet.
...Beverly
Lynne Scholl
> Now that I am divorced, should I pursue further studies or whatever, to
> secure better employment...how is the ex even remotely entitled to this
> extra income?
>
>
Not the ex, the kids.
>
>
> You people with the kids need to remember the ex needs to live as well. If
> the ex wins the lottery after the divorce...where in any decency are you
> entitled to even the smallest penny of it?
>
I would think the children would be entitled to something. Let's put it this
way.....they're both the parents of this child, correct? Now, one person wins
the lottery after divorce, right? They're rolling in money now. If the family
were intact, wouldn't the child benefit from the extra money by having some
extras? Better cloths, some nice toys, dinners out at nice places? So, just
because mom and dad are divorced, the child no longer benefits? Doesn't seem
fair to me....
--
lynne
Crazylady
retail I am intimately aquatinted with the cost of just such merchandise,
and I feel the need to set some things straight.
For one, it makes very little difference the name. My mother taught me
years ago what to look for in quality and it is something she learned from
her mother. so, everyone learn it. from whoever.
And know this. A retailers cost on clothing (including franchises) is
directly proportional to how much he orders and when. Okay, still with me?
the mark up of Levi's is higher than the mark up on Wranglers mostly, and I
am not joking here, because the retailer who sells you Levis needs to make
more money off the one pair of jeans than the discounter does. Buying in
quantity is how the retailer makes his money. The more he buys the less he
has to charge.
And before you flip out about quality, let me reassure you that it is hardly
relevant. Most name brand merchandisers have contracted mills manufacture
the product. So, those name brand jeans or shirts you buy are very likely
made right along side the off brand ones. Even grocery items are packaged
like this. A crappy batch of clothes is simply that.
And so, the point of all this, well I have absolutely no idea. Just check
the quality honeys. And remember, as long as your children HAVE clothes,
they will have the basics. Yes, their egos may suffer, but what kid hasn't
had to deal with that at some point. If you continue to make an issue of
it, then they will grow up making it one too.
Good luck,
Crazylady.
kmichel...@mci2000.com
to make a drastic drop in CS too! The fact is though, we tried a small
amount and it didn't work. I applaud anyone grown up enough to handle
things in a civil manner and make the best of a difficult situation.
Kim
lbdcre...@juno.com wrote in message <6r8edo$f97$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
lilbl...@my-dejanews.com
> >You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
> >the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
> >to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
> >in, pre-divorce.
> >
> >Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
> >divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> >support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
Good God, Wildman, why wouldn't you??? This isn't about you and your
ex...this is about your child. We're not talking about spousal support,
we're talking about *your child*! You should want to send him/her as much
money as you comfortably can. Do you feel nothing for this child? We
rejoice in being able to share our "fortune" with our son in any way
possible, whether he lives with us or not. The idea of child support being
about my husband's ex is the furthest thing from our mind!
I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses
off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
resent having to share it with them!
SoccerStepMom
> naught...what was the point????
Hold on a second here. If I understand your point, you feel that since
you helped him become what he will be, you alone shoud benefit from the
rewards with him. His first child should get nothing. Wow. I can
appreciate if you would prefer to have the child in your own home, so
that you can spend the money directly and directly benefit from the
"lifestyle" component of CS awards.
But since that is not the case, that doesn't mean that your husband
shouldn't want to share his success with his own child.
Also, I take exception to the comment that, if you don't get all of his
money, his advancement will have been for naught. Won't you still be
better off to the tune of what he has left after CS? (I am assuming
that the new CS is calculated to be the same % of income as the old CS).
I do understand where you are coming from. I was horrorstruck the first
time my now-husband told me how much of his income he had to pay to his
ex in CS, medical, required college savings, etc. That said, I came to
terms with it before getting my life entangled in his. I knew I would
be responsible for our lifestyle.
Sorry it's not more promising. SSM
>
> Any ideas???
Beverly
> If you were still married, and got a better paying job, would you keep
> your children in the same living standard they were previously in?
The answer to that would depend upon where you started from. My
husband is anticipating an increase in income. Since we are doing fine
on what we have, he plans to sink the extra into retirement. The
children won't suffer if we do this, yet WE might suffer (later) if we
don't. Once the children have what they need (and perhaps some of what
they want), what we do with the rest is no one else's business.
almost...@geocities.com
"Wildman" <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> Oops...it should have said..
>
> materialistic things should not be an issue
>
Materials "weren't" the issue...costs "were". Wal-Mart may just be a bit
cheaper on jeans than Broadway Southwest.
> I am sorry you perceived it as name calling. I will try harder to send
> complete messsages..
>
> Where do you ever see a Wal-Mart that doesn't sell Levi's or Wranglers? I
> have been into many Wal-Marts in many states, and they all sell at least
> Wranglers.
>
> Wildman
>
> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
> >It doesn't matter, that wasn't exactly the point. But, since you brought
> it
> >up -- my kids don't get to wear Levis because my wal-mart doesn't sell
> them!
> >
> >Since you're resorting to name calling -- takes one to know one.
> >
> >Wildman wrote in message <6r7v0j$98v$1...@supernews.com>...
> >>What the heck does it matter if it is a pair of Levi jeans from Wal-Mart
> or
> >>Broadway Southwest?
> >>
> >>Materialist...
> >>
> >>Wildman
> >>
> >>
> >>kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
> >>>Oh, by the way, anyone with any common sense should know but I'll state
> it
> >>>regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example! I
> >>>personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last
> near
> >>>as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
> >>>
> >>>>> their parents rakes in the dough. The answer, IMO, is no. I'd like
> to
> >>>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> >>>>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
--
Char
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
almost...@geocities.com
No it's not fair...but no one ever said that life would be fair. If one
parent wins the lottery, then if they "want" to spend it on the kids, that is
their choice. We don't make parents in intact families spend it on the kids.
They could be providing for all their children's needs, hit the jackpot, and
squirrel it away for retirement...which is their right. As long as the
children's needs are being met, they aren't "entitled" to any extra. Parents
give them extra out of love...and you cannot force love.
Phillip Pence
>
> Wildman wrote:
>
> > Now that I am divorced, should I pursue further studies or whatever, to
> > secure better employment...how is the ex even remotely entitled to this
> > extra income?
> >
> >
>
> Not the ex, the kids.
>
> >
> >
> > You people with the kids need to remember the ex needs to live as well. If
> > the ex wins the lottery after the divorce...where in any decency are you
> > entitled to even the smallest penny of it?
> >
>
> I would think the children would be entitled to something. Let's put it this
> way.....they're both the parents of this child, correct? Now, one person wins
> the lottery after divorce, right? They're rolling in money now. If the family
> were intact, wouldn't the child benefit from the extra money by having some
> extras? Better cloths, some nice toys, dinners out at nice places? So, just
> because mom and dad are divorced, the child no longer benefits? Doesn't seem
> fair to me....
>
> --
> lynne
Sure the children should benefit from either parent having more money
and the only way to ensure that this happens is to allow the parent to
spend the money directly on the children. Court ordered C$ should not
go up due to an increase, while actual support perhaps should.
--
Phil-Not because I'm anti-feminist; I'm just pro-family
Beverly
> I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses
> off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
> resent having to share it with them!
That's not what I heard him saying. I heard him saying that he
doesn't feel he should be forced to provide more by way of a child
support payment. I never heard him say he wouldn't spend any of this
increase on his children (maybe he will, maybe he won't). So long as he
is contributing at least 50% of what is deemed appropriate to raise that
number of children in a manner inconsistent with poverty, any further
income is discretionary. Let the man have his discretion and make his
OWN relationship with the kids. Course, women have to allow visitation
for this (this is not directed toward you, I don't even know you).
Beverly
> I would think the children would be entitled to something.
Children are never *entitled* to extras, although living with a
wealthy parent often gives them extras by virtue of the parent's
personal lifestyle... not because they deserve it because they were born
into wealth.
> Let's put it this way.....they're both the parents of this child, correct? Now, one
> person wins the lottery after divorce, right? They're rolling in money now. If the
> family were intact, wouldn't the child benefit from the extra money by having some
> extras?
Probably... but it would be a parent's CHOICE to move the entire
family to a nicer dwelling or to buy caviar or to hire servants, etc...
I've heard of people who were filthy rich living in cabins in the
woods. No one has the right to tell another how to spend their
fortune. Everyone has a right to expect a parent to assume basic
responsibilities.
> Better cloths, some nice toys, dinners out at nice places? So, just
> because mom and dad are divorced, the child no longer benefits? Doesn't seem
> fair to me....
Who says the child won't get these things without an increase in
support? Can Dad not buy these things himself? The parents divorced.
The non-wealthy parent has no right to see his/her children enjoy these
things. If the non-wealthy parent wants the children to enjoy their
other parent's wealth, all they can do is give access so the child CAN.
It is up to the wealthy parent (who has the right to the pleasure of
seeing the children enjoy such things) to establish/maintain his/her own
relationship with the children... be it extra-financially or otherwise.
SoccerStepMom
>
> > In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
>
> > >You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
> > >the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
> > >to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
> > >in, pre-divorce.
> > >
> > >Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
> > >divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> > >support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
>
> Good God, Wildman, why wouldn't you??? This isn't about you and your
> ex...this is about your child. We're not talking about spousal support,
> we're talking about *your child*! You should want to send him/her as much
> money as you comfortably can. Do you feel nothing for this child? We
> rejoice in being able to share our "fortune" with our son in any way
> possible, whether he lives with us or not. The idea of child support being
> about my husband's ex is the furthest thing from our mind!
>
> off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
> resent having to share it with them!
>
Hi, Lil - welcome to the wonderful world of bitter NCPs who inhabit the
other groups this is cross-posted to.
I will admit, we hated that the fruits of my husband's labor were being
enjoyed by his lazy, cruel ex-wife. But as long as his sons were living
in her house, it was the only way he could provide for them in the way
he wanted to.
Oh, well. I have even read people here say that they would be satisfied
having their kids live in welfare projects if that's all their CP Mom
can afford, before they would send her a penny! SSM
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Just Steff
>things.
God talk about selfish. I'm glad my X is not selfish. He not only takes care of
his kids but me too, for now. HE cannot take care of them in his home, so
therefore I must, so therefore he makes sure His kids don't suffer and if I
benefit by his attitude he doesn't care. In fact the girls think he's the best
daddy in the world because they know who pays for our house, food, clothing,
vehicle etc... while they have friends who live below the poverty level with
mom while the father lives in a big house the hill. These father's don't want
the kids to live with them, so that's no excuse.
I'm glad my X is a grown up, who puts his love for his children above our
personal problems.
Stephanie
Just Steff
>> in the world should they be entitled to something that they only worked to
>> discourage
Because if the family was intact and he'd gone to college the child would
benefit from the father's education by having a better life. I am worried
about the wording you used, "they" do you mean "they" as in the child too?
Children don't ask to be born and they come first. Even if he pays 21% of his
income, his new higher income, he'll still make more than he's used to making,
so what's the big deal?
I think it takes up too much brain space worrying about how the X is spending
the money. It's for the child, who does deserve to be supported by his parents.
Once you married a NCP you took on that responsibility. I commend you for
paying the support while he was in school. My boyfriend also pays support and
soon will be going back to school. He will still work, but at a much lower
income than what child support was determined on... but we'll pay it anyway.
It's His responsibility and mine since I am with him.
Stephanie
janelaw
>
> lilbl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
> > > >divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> > > >support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
> >
> > Good God, Wildman, why wouldn't you???
> > I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses
> > off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
> > resent having to share it with them!
> >
> > lil
>
> Hi, Lil - welcome to the wonderful world of bitter NCPs who inhabit the
> other groups this is cross-posted to.
>
> I will admit, we hated that the fruits of my husband's labor were being
> enjoyed by his lazy, cruel ex-wife. But as long as his sons were living
> in her house, it was the only way he could provide for them in the way
> he wanted to.
>
> Oh, well. I have even read people here say that they would be satisfied
> having their kids live in welfare projects if that's all their CP Mom
> can afford, before they would send her a penny! SSM
>
>
What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a
guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her
responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
the poverty level is pretty damned low.
Just Steff
>off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
>resent having to share it with them!
>
>lil
>
Hi lil,
I agree with you.
I do think in some cases the courts should require an accounting of how the
money is spent.... My X husband used to pay support to a woman who still lived
in a broken down trailor house and he paid enough to move her up in the world.
My X now pays me 5 x's what he had to pay her, and he does so happily because
he knows I use it to support His girls. Yes it gives me the same lifestyle they
enjoy, but it's for them. Once they're grown I'll have to support myself
totally, which is why I am in school now.
People shouldn't be so selfish.
Stephanie
Just Steff
>> had discussed the new husband adopting the child, but we haven't heard any
>> more about this.
Oh my, I missed this one the first time. Gee if the father doesn't love the kid
enough to support it he may as well let the step father adopt. I'd like to know
why people feel it's OK for a step father to take over where the real father
fails, but not for a step mom to suffer a little????? Makes no sense to me.
This saddens me that you'd even consider allowing someone to adopt... just over
MONEY. Talk about greedy... I don't think it's the X being greedy here.
Stephanie
Tracey
You know, Stephanie, you keep calling people 'selfish' who have
a problem with supporting their ex-spouses or who have a problem
with being made to send more money than it actually costs to
support their children and I don't understand that. When an NCP
is already paying half (or more) of their child's expenses, any-
thing above and beyond that is purely discretionary and not wanting
or being willing to send more is *not* always selfish. I would
wager that most of the people in this discussion are *not* living
at poverty level or below, so we're not talking about an NCP's
income doubling as being the difference between the child eating
one meal a day or actually having a nutritionally balanced diet.
It would *seem* that most of us who do not feel that CS should
be raised every time there is a jump in income are not saying
that the children can be raised on a bowl of rice a day and a
new pair of jeans every couple of years. What I'm dealing with
personally are stepchildren who seemingly have a higher level
'lifestyle' than we do. In reality, it really isn't so. They
and their mother just choose to spend their money differently
than we do. In our situation, I don't see the logic or even
the *good* that it would do my stepchildren to have the CS
doubled if my husband's income would double. Why? So they can
have another wardrobe of namebrand clothes? A brand new CRX in-
stead of the used one? So they can have it even more deeply in-
grained that whatever they want they should get?
So, while you may view the people who feel a raise in CS in the
instance that an NCP's income drastically changes is not called
for as being 'selfish', there *are* other ways to see it.
Tracey
Julie
>
> lilbl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > I just don't understand this way of thinking. Most parents work their asses
> > off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
> > resent having to share it with them!
>
> doesn't feel he should be forced to provide more by way of a child
> support payment. I never heard him say he wouldn't spend any of this
> increase on his children (maybe he will, maybe he won't). So long as he
> is contributing at least 50% of what is deemed appropriate to raise that
> number of children in a manner inconsistent with poverty, any further
> income is discretionary. Let the man have his discretion and make his
> OWN relationship with the kids. Course, women have to allow visitation
> for this (this is not directed toward you, I don't even know you).
I agree. The needs of the child should be split 50/50 by both parents.
After that, if the NCP wants to contribute more it should be in his
control to do so, not add'l $$s added to the support check for the CP to
handle. The NCP should have the right to handle these things as a
parent, too.
JMO...
Julie
Julie
And that is entirely up to you and your husband. My parents were quite
well off while we were growing up and didn't divorce until we were
adults. There wasn't much change in our lifestyle in moving from middle
income. My parents saw a small change, in that they were able to
vacation after 10 yrs of marriage, buy nicer and more reliable cars,
nicer clothes for those jobs that were providing those incomes, etc. but
they were still fairly conservative, and they held by the principle that
we should learn to earn what we have. We got to ride in the nicer car
and got to have steak once a week instead of hamburger, but we provided
for on much the same level.
It was their decision to make as adults earning that income that
provided for us. I can't see why that should have changed by law or CSE
had they divorced sooner.
Julie
Julie
>
> lilbl...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> >
> > > >the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
> > > >to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
> > > >in, pre-divorce.
> > > >
> > > >divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> > > >support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
> >
> > ex...this is about your child. We're not talking about spousal support,
> > we're talking about *your child*! You should want to send him/her as much
> > money as you comfortably can. Do you feel nothing for this child? We
> > rejoice in being able to share our "fortune" with our son in any way
> > possible, whether he lives with us or not. The idea of child support being
> > about my husband's ex is the furthest thing from our mind!
> >
> > off so they *can* provide for thier children. You work your ass off and
> > resent having to share it with them!
> >
>
> Hi, Lil - welcome to the wonderful world of bitter NCPs who inhabit the
> other groups this is cross-posted to.
>
> I will admit, we hated that the fruits of my husband's labor were being
> enjoyed by his lazy, cruel ex-wife. But as long as his sons were living
> in her house, it was the only way he could provide for them in the way
> he wanted to.
>
> Oh, well. I have even read people here say that they would be satisfied
> having their kids live in welfare projects if that's all their CP Mom
> can afford, before they would send her a penny! SSM
>
> >
> > http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
If that's the case, the best interest of the children might be better
served by living with the parent who can provide more than a home in the
welfare projects. The best interests of the children shouldn't be based
strictly on the financial, but maybe it should be a factor.
The reason my son lived with his dad and stepmom for five years was due
to the fact that they were the first to purchase a home. I wasn't living
in anything near a welfare project, but we did feel that his was the
most stable environment and that he'd have an opportunity to be more
"settled" than he would be in apartment living. I didn't feel that it
made me less of a parent, it just meant that my resources were more
limited at the time.
JMO...
Julie
Wildman
this...more child support means mom is living in a better environment...I do
not care where or how mom is living...yes, the children do matter...but, I
stick to my initial reservation...mom is not entitled to any additional
money from me..it is based on the income levels during the marriage and that
is where it should stay.
Sorry...and if this were ever the case, and I didn't have custody, I would
recruit better lawyers to strip her of her custodial responsibilities
anyways...but it is not the case.
When one person decides to divorce...and that one person desires
custody...that same person incurs a huge responsibility. That one person is
telling the world that he or she is the proper parent and therefore along
with the proper parent title does come the financial burdens associated with
it. If the parent thinking he or she is the proper parent, but cannot
adequately support the children...then how is he or she the proper parent?
Pretty selfish if anyone wants to know how I feel about it...for one to rip
the family apart, suddenly make the other a weekender, knowing full well
they cannot adequately support the children...that one is a piece of shit.
Wildman
Lynne Scholl wrote in message <35D87FC7...@sdrc.com>...
>Wildman wrote:
>
>> Now that I am divorced, should I pursue further studies or whatever, to
>> secure better employment...how is the ex even remotely entitled to this
>> extra income?
>>
>>
>
>Not the ex, the kids.
>
>>
>>
>> You people with the kids need to remember the ex needs to live as well.
If
>> the ex wins the lottery after the divorce...where in any decency are you
>> entitled to even the smallest penny of it?
>>
>
>I would think the children would be entitled to something. Let's put it
this
>way.....they're both the parents of this child, correct? Now, one person
wins
>the lottery after divorce, right? They're rolling in money now. If the
family
>were intact, wouldn't the child benefit from the extra money by having some
>extras? Better cloths, some nice toys, dinners out at nice places? So,
just
>because mom and dad are divorced, the child no longer benefits? Doesn't
seem
>fair to me....
>
>--
>lynne
>
>
>
lilblakdog
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article
<35D99ABF...@excite.com>...
> What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a
> guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her
> responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
> discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
> the poverty level is pretty damned low.
Yeugh! Tell me about it. DH and I live below the Canadian poverty level
(well...he's been promoted now, so hopefully that will change) and even the
government refuses to recognize us!
We have something here called a GST credit. It's sent to you four times a
year in reimbursement for the hardship of our "new" Goods and Services Tax
and is based on your income. However, since DH and I collectively make
more than (get this!) $33,000/year, we're not eligible for it! When we
were living together we both got the maximum amount, but as soon as we
signed "the paper" we were ineligible.
SIGH!!! I *knew* I hated the idea of marriage!
lil
Julie
There are a lot of men and women who do that as NCPs, and that's great.
However, just because a person views and handles his or her finances
differently does not make them selfish nor should it be a matter for
law. I think my ex and I both appreciate the fact that one leaves the
other to behave as an adult in these matters, rather than forcing the
other through CSE. But we do that because we both believe that neither
has the right to tell the other how to handle their finances, no how
much the other does or doesn't have.
JMO...
Julie
lilblakdog
Beverly <Bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote in article
<35D98BBC...@hiwaay.net>...
> That's not what I heard him saying. I heard him saying that he
> doesn't feel he should be forced to provide more by way of a child
> support payment. I never heard him say he wouldn't spend any of this
> increase on his children (maybe he will, maybe he won't). So long as he
> is contributing at least 50% of what is deemed appropriate to raise that
> number of children in a manner inconsistent with poverty, any further
> income is discretionary.
Actually, you're right (oooh, that hurts!)...I was jumping to conclusions.
I just see so many people who seem to think that child support is about the
ex...he was definitely one of them and I tackled him before getting the
whole story. If they're worried that the money isn't going toward the kid
(directly or indirectly), they should demand a listing of how the money is
distributed. They won't get a "to the dollar" listing, but you can figure
an average amount for groceries, rent on a 2 bedroom vs. 1 bedroom
apartment, clothes, entertainment, etc.
lil
Just Steff
How can I "keep" calling people selfish I just got here.
Stephanie
Just Steff
>other to behave as an adult in these matters, rather than forcing the
>other through CSE.
In our divorce we have a line in there that says that CSE (or something like
that) is NOT handling the case, that no Public Assistance application is
pending.
If the couple agrees and there is no need for PA then CSE isn't involved. The
Child support amounts are geared towards only the bare necessities, I'd hope
any NCP who has it will give more than the bare necessities. We didn't even
look at the child support guidelines. I am sure what he's giving is more. We
looked at our finances and determined what would be needed to keep the kids as
close to what they'd been used to as possible.
It's unfortunate that CSE is needed. But it's due to so many parents not taking
care of their kids with out a law making them.
Stephanie
Just Steff
>responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
>discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
>the poverty level is pretty damned low.
Gee no kidding :(
Stephanie
Just Steff
>"settled" than he would be in apartment living. I didn't feel that it
>made me less of a parent, it just meant that my resources were more
>limited at the time.
>
>JMO...
>Julie
>
>
>
Julie I agree with you. HOwever in my case my X doesn't want the kids to live
with him, and even if he did he realizes it wouldn't work due to his job. (he's
gone a lot)
So therefore, IF my X did not pay substantially more money than "required"
directly to me my kids Would live in proverty since we together agreed that I'd
stay at home until the youngest started school, then go to school myself...
just because we divorced shouldn't change this plan. I'm glad we're both grown
up enough to work it out. I'm glad you and your x were too.
Stephanie
Wakanyeja Makah
>What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a
>responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
>discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
>the poverty level is pretty damned low.
Ok, I'll bite.
What kills me is CP who (after THEY have filed for the divorce) receive
child-support and feel that they can live off of the child-support and off
of mom and dad (or anyone else dense enough to suppport them) and that
somehow they personally aren't responsible for contributing to their
child's financial situation and so these kids remain in poverty even though
Dad is paying support (and lots of it) regularly.
Just my two cents,
W. Makah
Julie
I agree. Holding onto those commitments benefits all of you, I think.
It's those who don't agree like you and your ex where it's a problem.
Where is the boundary between a moral commitment that you two are making
and keeping, and those who are legally bound to pay more than is
necessary to support their kids? I wish I had those answers!
Julie
Just Steff
>and keeping, and those who are legally bound to pay more than is
>necessary to support their kids? I wish I had those answers!
>
>Julie
It's my feeling that if people could keep to their moral commitments we
wouldn't have to have an police or any laws or any courts. Since obviously most
of us cannot keep to our moral commitments we need laws to help us and to
protect the children.
Stephanie
Just Steff
>child's financial situation and so these kids remain in poverty even though
>Dad is paying support (and lots of it) regularly.
>
>Just my two cents,
>
>W. Makah
I dont know your situation but I think a stay at home parent IS contributing to
their children in more ways than dollars can determine.... that is IF the
parent is really there for their kids and a GOOD parent. I have certainly seen
parents who are horrible...
I work 20 hrs a week and go to school full time. I certanly don't make enough
to support my kids, or even close to half, in fact I only make about 110 a
week.
My x pays for us to live and for my school, as well he should since that is
what he promised to do from day one... I won't say what broke up the marriage
but I will say it wasn't my fault. He made the choice to end things by his
actions.
He is sticking to at least one promise. Thankfully.
Stephanie
SoccerStepMom
> "settled" than he would be in apartment living. I didn't feel that it
> made me less of a parent, it just meant that my resources were more
> limited at the time.
>
> JMO...
> Julie
I think a lot of folks here would agree, and are deeply frustrated that
they don't have that option. You deserve to be commended for coming to
that conclusion on your own. Most Moms have too much invested in being
a Mom to make that decision. My hat's off to you. SSM
lilblakdog
SoccerStepMom <soccer...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<35D9FF...@hotmail.com>...
> Julie wrote:
> > The reason my son lived with his dad and stepmom for five years was due
> > to the fact that they were the first to purchase a home. I wasn't
living
> > in anything near a welfare project, but we did feel that his was the
> > most stable environment and that he'd have an opportunity to be more
> > "settled" than he would be in apartment living. I didn't feel that it
> > made me less of a parent, it just meant that my resources were more
> > limited at the time.
> You deserve to be commended for coming to
> that conclusion on your own. Most Moms have too much invested in being
> a Mom to make that decision. My hat's off to you.
I agree...you certainly should be commended in putting your son's best
interests before your own wants and needs ('cause let's face it...most
mothers feel the need to have their children close).
We're hoping that we can convince my stepson's mom to let him stay with us
for a similar reason. He's falling terribly behind in school and she is
unable or unwilling to help him with the work that he very much needs help
with. We understand that she'd be pretty lost without him, so DH and I
would be willing to take him home to her (out of town) every weekend if it
means that we can have him during his school week until his skills have
reached his grade level.
lil
Justme
In article <Exsw5...@world.std.com>, jmel...@world.std.com (Jonathan
>In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
>>You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
>>the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
>>to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
>>in, pre-divorce.
>>
>>Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
>>divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
>>support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
>>
>
>your children in the same living standard they were previously in?
>
That is a classic "red herring" You're not married anymore, and therefore the
hypothetical "if you're still married..." has no merit in the dicussion.
Pat Winstanley
<wma...@hotmail.com> writes
>What kills me is CP who (after THEY have filed for the divorce) receive
>child-support and feel that they can live off of the child-support and off
>of mom and dad (or anyone else dense enough to suppport them) and that
>child's financial situation and so these kids remain in poverty even though
>Dad is paying support (and lots of it) regularly.
And do you feel the same when the situation is reversed?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<Phil...@bigfoot.com> writes
>Sure the children should benefit from either parent having more money
>and the only way to ensure that this happens is to allow the parent to
>spend the money directly on the children.
No, it isn't the only way. It is one way. Some parents don't and won't
share their income with their children above what they are forced to
spend. How does the child benefit if the parent won't spend some of
their extra income on the child?
> Court ordered C$ should not
>go up due to an increase, while actual support perhaps should.
Depends upon the circumstances.
For instance if someone moves to a new job in a new area with higher pay
balanced by higher living expenses in that area (for same effective SOL)
then are they really better off? OTOH if someone gets a job at the rates
paid to residents with a high COL but the recipient lives in a low COL
area...?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<noe...@mindXspring.com> writes
>Not the kids, the ex: 'CS' is nothing more than money for her
>to spend as she pleases.
Oh what a dilemma... shall I as a CP spend the money for today's food on
eggs for the child or cheese for the child... well, I suppose I can
please myself... what dish do I fancy concocting from this new
ingrediant plus the cupboard basic stocks tonight... now let's see - we
had eggs yesterday and cheese the day before so I suppose it's eggs
again today... what a pleasant decision to make... meanwhile I'll just
have the usual veg soup and toast...
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
writes
>If the parent thinking he or she is the proper parent, but cannot
>adequately support the children...then how is he or she the proper parent?
>Pretty selfish if anyone wants to know how I feel about it...for one to rip
>the family apart, suddenly make the other a weekender, knowing full well
>they cannot adequately support the children...that one is a piece of shit.
Do you feel the same about a parent who places the child with a
childminder so that the parent can earn the money to pay the
childminding fees... and actually end up little if any better off than
if they simply did the childminding themself?
--
Pat Winstanley
kmichel...@mci2000.com
Levi's. I'd gladly buy a pair of Levis as they generally last quite a
while, but I don't happen to care for the type of wranglers they sell. Just
personal preference, I suppose.
Kim
almost...@geocities.com wrote in message
<6rbvh2$ob$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6r9ku9$r9k$1...@supernews.com>,
> "Wildman" <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
>> Oops...it should have said..
>>
>> materialistic things should not be an issue
>>
>
>Materials "weren't" the issue...costs "were". Wal-Mart may just be a bit
>cheaper on jeans than Broadway Southwest.
>
>> I am sorry you perceived it as name calling. I will try harder to send
>> complete messsages..
>>
>> Where do you ever see a Wal-Mart that doesn't sell Levi's or Wranglers? I
>> have been into many Wal-Marts in many states, and they all sell at least
>> Wranglers.
>>
>> Wildman
>>
>> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>> >It doesn't matter, that wasn't exactly the point. But, since you
brought
>> it
>> >up -- my kids don't get to wear Levis because my wal-mart doesn't sell
>> them!
>> >
>> >Since you're resorting to name calling -- takes one to know one.
>> >
>> >Wildman wrote in message <6r7v0j$98v$1...@supernews.com>...
>> >>What the heck does it matter if it is a pair of Levi jeans from
Wal-Mart
>> or
>> >>Broadway Southwest?
>> >>
>> >>Materialist...
>> >>
>> >>Wildman
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote in message ...
>> >>>Oh, by the way, anyone with any common sense should know but I'll
state
>> it
>> >>>regardless -- the Wal-Mart jeans statement was just an example! I
>> >>>personally have some clothing from Wal-Mart......but it does not last
>> near
>> >>>as long as other clothing I've paid a little more for in the past.
>> >>>
>> >>>Kim
>> >>>
>> >>>almost...@geocities.com wrote in message
>> >>><6r7bib$303$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >>>>In article <35D7040E...@hiwaay.net>,
>> >>>> Beverly <Bev...@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>> >>>>> kmichel...@MCI2000.com wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> > My ex feels the same way you seem to. He thinks whether he's
making
>> >>$5
>> >>>an
>> >>>>> > hour or wins the lottery that his child support should remain the
>> >>same.
>> >>>If
>> >>>>> > my hubby and I were millionnaire's who would care! But, in
reality,
>> >>>why
>> >>>>> > should he get all of the new things and enjoy a life without
>> >>"scrimping
>> >>>and
>> >>>>> > saving" while the kids have to still get their clothes from
Wal-Mart
>> >>>while
>> >>>>> > his kids wear name brands? Or, while his kids get to go skating
and
>> >>to
>> >>>the
>> >>>>> > movies, while ours get to just go to school and then home? I
guess
>>
>> >it
>> >>>>> > depends on how you look at it if you consider it fair.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This is exactly why there needs to be a "cap" on child support
>> >>>>> awards... the disparity of incomes throughout the nation. The
>> >>>>> difference between a Wal-Mart pair of jeans and a name brand pair
of
>> >>>>> jeans is discretionary.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> While I would agree that the CP should never have to watch
>> his/her
>> >>>>> child go without, especially if the NCP is making some big bucks, I
>> >also
>> >>>>> ask myself if children are entitled to extras simply because one of
>> >>>>> their parents rakes in the dough. The answer, IMO, is no. I'd
like
>> to
>> >>>>> see the parent WITH the extra money try and "even things out" when
>> >there
>> >>>>> are children from two marriages/relationships, but that is a matter
of
>> >>>>> the relationship between the children and that parent... one where
the
>> >>>>> other parent needs to butt out. Sure, the kids can be emotionally
>> >>>>> marred by a wealthy parent only alotting them extreme basics while
>> >>>>> lavishing custodial children with extras, but that is a matter of
>> their
>> >>>>> relationship. A court order cannot fix that. All the money in the
>> >>>>> world cannot fix that.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I agree here Beverly. You cannot force a parent to love their
children.
>> >>>You
>> >>>>can only force them to take the responsibility of providing for their
>> >>>needs.
>> >>>>The rest must be given freely, or it is of little value.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Modifications should not be granted, IMO, solely because of an
>> >>>>> increase in parental income (unless the parent whose income
increased
>> >>>>> was paying less than 50% of the child's needs). I'd like to see
>> courts
>> >>>>> ask if and how the children's costs have changed... and yes, some
of
>> >>>>> this may be due to inflation... instead of asking how a parent's
>> income
>> >>>>> has changed.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As with all things, there are exceptions (i.e. the children
were
>> >>>>> below poverty level before the divorce and had to remain there
>> >>>>> post-divorce)... but no parent should be held liable for
discretionary
>> >>>>> expenditures simply because they can better provide them now.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> ...Beverly
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>--
>> >>>>Char
>> >>>>
>> >>>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion
==-----
>> >>>>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member
Forum
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Char
>
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
kmichel...@mci2000.com
marriage and $15,000 a year afterwards -- you'd feel different.
Kim
<snip>
Wildman wrote in message <I
Wakanyeja Makah
<pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>And do you feel the same when the situation is reversed?
Yes Pat. I believe in equal (not superior) rights. I believe that both
mothers and fathers (CP and NCP) have an obligation to support their child.
Does this surprise you?
W. Makah
Just Steff
>That is a classic "red herring" You're not married anymore, and therefore
>the
>hypothetical "if you're still married..." has no merit in the dicussion.
Not to the kids.
Stephanie
Nimue
:
: In article <Exsw5...@world.std.com>, jmel...@world.std.com (Jonathan
: Meltzer) wrote:
: >In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
: >>You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
: >>the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
: >>to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
: >>in, pre-divorce.
: >>
: >>Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
: >>divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
: >>support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
: >>
: >
: >If you were still married, and got a better paying job, would you keep
: >your children in the same living standard they were previously in?
: >
:
: That is a classic "red herring" You're not married anymore, and therefore the
: hypothetical "if you're still married..." has no merit in the dicussion.
Agree, but disagree...
If the CP got a raise due to a better job... would you fee the same way?
Are you willing to have it both ways or should this just apply to the NCP?
Anyways... there are always cost of living increases. My income only went
up by 2.8% this year, but my electric, water, garbage, sewer, food, and
clothing went up from anywhere between 4% to 15%.
If support starts when a child is young (let's say 5)... then within that
thirteen years you will see a huge increase in cost of living... and I'm
not talking about improvements in living, but maintaining the same living
standards.
Let's say a CP started to rent a two bedroom apartment for one child and
her/himself... it starts out at $400/month (cheap for this area). Let's
say that support was calculated at $100/month. Now... rent goes up
$20/yr... in 13 years the rent will be $660/month. Food goes up by 5%
every year, and what use to cost $120/month to feed the two of them, now
cost $226. Children's clothing went from $200/yr to $300/yr... etc. This
CP went from paying (with just these figures) $6,440/yr to $10,932/yr.
Almost a $4,500 increase for a 13 year period of time.
Now let's say the income for the CP goes up 3% every year... a 3% increase
wouldn't keep the CP and the child in the same standards. Meanwhile.. the
NCP receives increase of at least 8% every year. Meanwhile support is
still only $1,200/yr...
This is the way it is for me... I'm willing to accept that and do the best
I can... I have not increased the support I received in the almost 6.5
years I've been receiving it. My standard of living has increased, but
that's due to me (I got a degree and a better job)... but I'm not willing
to jump from job to job for larger increases... I'm not willing to move my
kids around for that larger pay.
Oh, the figures are hypothetical... but my increases are not vs his (the
NCP) increases.
Tracy
http://www.teleport.com/~nimue/index.html
My peace... traveling anywhere that I can reach within a four hour period
of time. My medium... my car (watch out for that white car).
My pleasure... taking tons of pictures. My freedom... the State of
Oregon and all it's wonders....
**** spamguard in place! to email me: nimue at teleport dot com ****
almost...@geocities.com
"Wildman" <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> Well, I am sorry. I have mixed feelings with this issue. But I can realize
> this...more child support means mom is living in a better environment...I do
> stick to my initial reservation...mom is not entitled to any additional
> money from me..it is based on the income levels during the marriage and that
> is where it should stay.
>
> recruit better lawyers to strip her of her custodial responsibilities
> anyways...but it is not the case.
>
> When one person decides to divorce...and that one person desires
> custody...that same person incurs a huge responsibility. That one person is
> telling the world that he or she is the proper parent and therefore along
> with the proper parent title does come the financial burdens associated with
> adequately support the children...then how is he or she the proper parent?
> Pretty selfish if anyone wants to know how I feel about it...for one to rip
> the family apart, suddenly make the other a weekender, knowing full well
> they cannot adequately support the children...that one is a piece of shit.
>
>
Ok, so just to use my own case (which I know quite well) as an example. What
should happen where I divorced because of "proven" abuse? I didn't ask for
sole custody, I wanted joint. I begged him to be a parent. But since he did
not show for the divorce, I very well couldn't force him to come out of
hiding from whatever state he was in to take her and say "Hi, I'm your dad
and will start acting like it."
And what of the cases where one parent dumps the other "and" the child to "go
find themselves", or their latest lover?
> Lynne Scholl wrote in message <35D87FC7...@sdrc.com>...
> >Wildman wrote:
> >
> >> Now that I am divorced, should I pursue further studies or whatever, to
> >> secure better employment...how is the ex even remotely entitled to this
> >> extra income?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not the ex, the kids.
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You people with the kids need to remember the ex needs to live as well.
> If
> >> the ex wins the lottery after the divorce...where in any decency are you
> >> entitled to even the smallest penny of it?
> >>
> >
> >I would think the children would be entitled to something. Let's put it
> this
> >way.....they're both the parents of this child, correct? Now, one person
> wins
> >the lottery after divorce, right? They're rolling in money now. If the
> family
> >were intact, wouldn't the child benefit from the extra money by having some
> >extras? Better cloths, some nice toys, dinners out at nice places? So,
> just
> >because mom and dad are divorced, the child no longer benefits? Doesn't
> seem
> >fair to me....
> >
> >--
> >lynne
> >
> >
> >
>
>
lilblakdog
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<4fSwLUAS...@pierless.demon.co.uk>...
> Oh what a dilemma... shall I as a CP spend the money for today's food on
> eggs for the child or cheese for the child... well, I suppose I can
> please myself... what dish do I fancy concocting from this new
> ingrediant plus the cupboard basic stocks tonight... now let's see - we
> had eggs yesterday and cheese the day before so I suppose it's eggs
> again today... what a pleasant decision to make... meanwhile I'll just
> have the usual veg soup and toast...
Now, see, this is what I don't understand. As I said, we pay a
ridiculously small amount of child support. So what's the norm? Even if
it was $1000 per month? Without working full time, I couldn't support
myself on $1000, let alone a child. I certainly couldn't see it being
described as giving me a "better life". And if I was working full time,
that $1000 would mostly be going toward daycare, so it still wouldn't
effect my quality of life!
lil
almost...@geocities.com
fra...@geocities.com (Justme) wrote:
>
> In article <Exsw5...@world.std.com>, jmel...@world.std.com (Jonathan
> Meltzer) wrote:
> >In article <6r7a7k$sin$1...@supernews.com>, Wildman <dre...@fiaaz.net> wrote:
> >>You know...here in Arizona...the child support system was re-designed for
> >>the ten millionth time. During this last time, and current, it is designed
> >>to keep the children in approximately the same living standards they were
> >>in, pre-divorce.
> >>
> >>Now, if me and the ex are divorced, which we are now, it was her decision to
> >>divorce, why should, if I get a better paying job after the divorce, my
> >>support payments be increased? Think about it. Why?
> >>
> >
> >If you were still married, and got a better paying job, would you keep
> >your children in the same living standard they were previously in?
> >
>
> That is a classic "red herring" You're not married anymore, and therefore the
> hypothetical "if you're still married..." has no merit in the dicussion.
>
Then perhaps the better wording is...."If you love your children, would you
keep them in the same living standard they were previously in....even if it
was poverty?" While I feel anything above basic needs should be voluntary, I
also fail to see how anyone could "not" want their children to have the best.
And you don't even have to hand it to the ex. If the ex won't spend it on
them, do so yourself if you can. If you can't (withholding visitation), then
you've done all you can do.
Pat Winstanley
<wma...@hotmail.com> writes
No... but's refreshing to hear people in here saying that BOTH parents
have obligations towards their children rather than concentrating on one
type of parent.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<lilbl...@my-dejanews.com> writes
The average CS (paid by the NCP and assumed to be paid by the CP) in the
UK seems to be the equivalent of about $250 or so per month each. Which
to me is pretty reasonable for a half share of the costs of a couple of
average (5 - 11 yr old) kids. I would certainly have been satisfied with
the equivalent of about $50 or so per week towards the costs of two kids
to supplement the at least that AND MORE I was spending from my own
resources on absolute BASIC needs for them - food, clothing, transport,
education etc. (We didn't have a car, phone, TV, many clothes, any
leisure etc).
--
Pat Winstanley
Lori moffit
The problem being that by law in most states, he most certainly *does*
have to hand it over to the ex, and so he has no say whatsoever in
choosing to spend above a certain level. I'm with the person who said
that the parent who is providing the money for "above the basics" should
be the parent who gets to actually "give" those things to their child,
and who should be the parent who gets to watch the child enjoy them, and
to enjoy them with the child. This means if Dad is paying for a fun
trip, it should be DAD who gets to go on said trip with child, NOT Mom.
Lori
Julie
I hope she realizes, then, that she's lucky to have an ex who is
actively involved in parenting and searching for what is best for their
son. And then there's the fact that he has a wife that supports him in
parenting the child. Not all CPs have that option, and I think those
that do need to recognize that and see the value to their child(ren),
rather than resenting the loss of control.
JMO...
Julie
Julie
That's right, but at what point is the court going too far? My ex and I
don't have a court agreement on child support, because the amount they
would calculate would be in excess of 100% of the amount needed to
support our son, rather than 50%, and there's no way I would be
comfortable w/that. But there are those out there who would be.
Julie
Just Steff
>don't have a court agreement on child support, because the amount they
>would calculate would be in excess of 100% of the amount needed to
>support our son, rather than 50%, and there's no way I would be
>comfortable w/that. But there are those out there who would be.
>
>Julie
>
I am curious do the courts get involved if the parents agree and no one is on
welfare? Since my x and I agree on our settlement and what is right for our
kids, I don't know.
I don't think it's always possible for each parent to provide 50 percent of the
support for the kids. I know that I cannot provide that amount of support
because I have been a housewife most of the time, and due to not finishing
school cannot earn much more than min wage. This was a choice we made together,
therefore he has to kick in the money because that was His choice too.
We used to say that if we divorced he'd get custody but that did not work out.
So therefore he has to kick in the money so that I can support them.
Generally men can earn more money than women. I don't think a NCP should even
pay child support at all to someone who earns a lot more than them. Each case
is different. But if the CP cannot earn a living the NCP is going to either
have to have custody while the CP goes to school, OR pay up.
Stephanie
Julie
>
> > My ex and I
> >don't have a court agreement on child support, because the amount they
> >would calculate would be in excess of 100% of the amount needed to
> >support our son, rather than 50%, and there's no way I would be
> >comfortable w/that. But there are those out there who would be.
> >
> >Julie
> >
>
> I am curious do the courts get involved if the parents agree and no one is on
> welfare? Since my x and I agree on our settlement and what is right for our
> kids, I don't know.
Not in our case because the CP has always waived CS in our custody
agreements. Had I wanted to, it would have taken a simple call to CSE to
get the ball rolling, and I'd be receiving a check each month. He could
have done the same when he was CP. Once they're involved, they do the
calc, set the amount and order it through the court.
>
> I don't think it's always possible for each parent to provide 50 percent of the
> support for the kids. I know that I cannot provide that amount of support
> because I have been a housewife most of the time, and due to not finishing
> school cannot earn much more than min wage. This was a choice we made together,
> therefore he has to kick in the money because that was His choice too.
>
> We used to say that if we divorced he'd get custody but that did not work out.
> So therefore he has to kick in the money so that I can support them.
That's similar to what we did. When we divorced, we just verbally agreed
that whomever settled into a house first would have custody because we
both felt that was the most stable environment and where our son would
have the best opportunity to be settled with friends, schools, etc. A
lot of people do not agree on these things, though, so it's left to the
courts.
>
> Generally men can earn more money than women. I don't think a NCP should even
> pay child support at all to someone who earns a lot more than them. Each case
> is different. But if the CP cannot earn a living the NCP is going to either
> have to have custody while the CP goes to school, OR pay up.
> Stephanie
I agree with this, I just don't believe the courts can look so deeply
into each case as to determine this. They can't delve into the minds of
each parent to see what their motives are, or who really does have the
best interest of the children in mind. Too many people are paying CS in
excess of 50% of what it takes to support their kid(s), and are not
allowed active participation in parenting.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, the whole situation can really suck
if both parents are not mature enough to act in their kid(s)' best
interest. How do we make changes that allow children to be taken care of
and have the opportunity to know both parents?
Julie
Maria
>
> On 18 Aug 1998 15:20:08 GMT, janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
> >What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a
> >guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her
> >responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
> >discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
> >the poverty level is pretty damned low.
>
> Ok, I'll bite.
>
> What kills me is CP who (after THEY have filed for the divorce) receive
> child-support and feel that they can live off of the child-support and off
> of mom and dad (or anyone else dense enough to suppport them) and that
> somehow they personally aren't responsible for contributing to their
> child's financial situation and so these kids remain in poverty even though
> Dad is paying support (and lots of it) regularly.
>
>
> W. Makah
>
This hit home! And what's worse is that the CP who refuses to get a
job, is collecting child support, and is being supported by her parents
is trying to get my fiance's pareting time REDUCED! He only has one
night (23 hrs.) every other weekend and 2.5 hours on Wednesdays (no
holidays). She wants his money, but doesn't want him to be a father to
his son. What is even more sickening is that he has tried 3 times in
the past 10 months to get his time increased to the standard parenting
time and keeps getting denied by the courts. You may ask, what's wrong
with this guy? Absolutely NOTHING. He has custody of his other 2
children, he works hard, and is a very patient and loving man. Drunken,
abusive, deadbeat losers get more time with their kids than he does.
His ex's parents have money and are very influential in the community.
I guess it's who you know.
Just Steff
>if both parents are not mature enough to act in their kid(s)' best
>interest. How do we make changes that allow children to be taken care of
>and have the opportunity to know both parents?
>
>Julie
I know it does suck. I have been involved in almost every aspect of this. Back
in 93/94 we were embroiled in a court battle for custody of my step daughter
(whom I am now legal mom since I adopted her) and everthing seemed on the
surface to be stacked against us. Mainly coz she was mom and my husband was
Dad.
However we did prevail. We didn't like paying child support to the X coz it
didn't go to the child. I think that an accounting of the money shoudl be done,
and I think that if the courts are going to make guidelines then they are going
to HAVE to delve deeper into each situation. Otherwise things aren't fair and
aren't done int he best interest of the kids.
Maybe a parenting license should be issued before anyone can have kids? <smile>
Stephanie
LDewlaney
>This hit home! And what's worse is that the CP who refuses to get a
>job, is collecting child support, and is being supported by her parents
>is trying to get my fiance's pareting time REDUCED! He only has one
>night (23 hrs.) every other weekend and 2.5 hours on Wednesdays (no
>holidays). She wants his money, but doesn't want him to be a father to
>his son. What is even more sickening is that he has tried 3 times in
>the past 10 months to get his time increased to the standard parenting
>time and keeps getting denied by the courts. You may ask, what's wrong
>with this guy? Absolutely NOTHING. He has custody of his other 2
>children, he works hard, and is a very patient and loving man. Drunken,
>abusive, deadbeat losers get more time with their kids than he does.
>His ex's parents have money and are very influential in the community.
>I guess it's who you know.
maria it sounds like you are in love, for sure, but please don't think that
there is nothing "wrong with this guy" (from what you wrote it looks like
he was married twice before and has 3 kids and now is marrying you...can't
always be the other persons fault you know. unless he has 3 kids by one ex
and has custody of 2 and she has custody of one, then she would be paying
him...see?). if he keeps getting married and then divorced there is
something wrong with how seriously he takes his wedding vows and cares about
making a stable family for his kids. i know i sound like dr. laura but he
should be concentrating on the 3 kids and not getting involved with another
marriage. maybe the courts would take his intentions seriously if he didn't
appear to be about to get into another similar situation. i'm sure you are
a very nice person but he is doing a disservice to his children.
janelaw
>
> janelaw wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > What kills me is the idea of using the poverty level as a
> > guideline. I just can't imagine a parent thinking that his/her
> > responsibility to the people they brought into the world was
> > discharged as long as they weren't in dire poverty. In the U.S.
> > the poverty level is pretty damned low.
>
Children deserve to be supported to the best of their parents'
ability. They do not need their every whim indulged.
>
> Would you have the child in poverty, the NCP in poverty,
> or make it so that they have an equal standard of living?
>
If it were a choice between the two, obviously the adult would
have to make the greater sacrifice. The parent is responsible
for bringing the child into the world.
> How do you bring up the childs SoL without bringing up
> the CP's SoL?
>
To some extent, the CP's SOL will increase with the child's.
> How is CS payment NOT a form of involuntary servitude?
>
Obviously it was a voluntary choice at one point. Otherwise,
there would be no child. This is the consequence of your
decision to have sex. Your feelings for the other parent, blood
alcohol level at the time of conception, desire to abort the
fetus, etc., don't alter the initial commitment.
> I have a basic bias for the person who does the producing.
> If you destroy their incentive to produce the goods, they
> quit and everyone suffers. Non-producers, even children,
> do not ALWAYS come before the producers in any society with
> thought out moral values.
>
For most people I know, providing for their children is their
major incentive for producing goods.
The "moral values" of this society do not support equation of
the value of a child's life with his/her ability to produce
goods. If you need an economic analysis, consider CS capital
investment. Your children will be a part of our society for the
rest of their lives. You brought them here. You make sure they
grow up to be an asset to that society. Otherwise, the rest of
us will all pay later for their lack of education, health care,
nutrition, counseling, etc. as children.
> How would you compare your moral stand WRT Child support with
> existing government laws regarding late term abortions?
I don't see the connection.
>
> It's a hypothetical question, because morally speaking,
> the laws in the U.S. are a hodge podge of conflicting
> moral stands that seem to have arosed because of special
> interest. There's no guiding principle behind any of it.
I believe the guiding principle in this area is "the best
interests of the child."
>
> How is your statement not a self serving "pay me more"
> argument?
Nothing in my post could possibly have given you that
impression. I said nothing about paying or being paid any CS.
I have no problems with CS.
>
> I get tired of these endless, bitter post about lack of
> child support and the CP's poverty.
I am pretty sick of these alt.child-support cross posts myself.
I am so sick of people whining about accepting their financial
responsibility to their children. I can't believe adults spend
so much time trying to punish their exes through their
children. I pity the children who have petty, vindictive,
selfish, money grubbing parents and step-parents.
I have worked very
> hard to get a BS Physics and even harder to get a BSEE.
I certainly hope the BSEE is in Electrical Engineering not
Elementary Education. There is no English word "arosed." I
believe you meant "arisen."
> I supported myself all the way. I am the CP and I don't
> get a DIME in child support from anybody. My ex get's
> the child support for my step daughter from her 1st ex.
> (I have custody of my step).
>
So get a lawyer. Send your step back to her BPs. Don't blame
it on me.
> If you can't support your kids on your own, explain
> the moral justification you used in bringing them into
> this world.
I pretty much feel the same way. If you are not willing to
support your children, explain the moral justification YOU used
when bringing them into this world. Besides, who said I had any
children that I wasn't supporting on my own?
Maria
Like I haven't heard this before. No, he's not perfect. I'm sure he
was partly to blame for 2 failed marriages, but does this justify him
not getting to see his son? His 2nd marriage ended because his wife
physically and mentally abused his 2 kids (that he has cusody of). She
was the perfect stepmother until she had a child of her own. After
that, her stepkids were a burden to her. Staying in that marriage would
have been a disservice to his children, don't you think?
Just Steff
>to me is pretty reasonable for a half share of the costs of a couple of
>average (5 - 11 yr old) kids.
250 wouldn't cover half the cost of daycare so certainly you're not saying that
250 covers half the expenses?
Stephanie
Just Steff
>there is nothing "wrong with this guy" (from what you wrote it looks like
>he was married twice before and has 3 kids and now is marrying you...can't
>always be the other persons fault you know.
> if he keeps getting married and then divorced there is
>something wrong with how seriously he takes his wedding vows
> dr. laura but he
>should be concentrating on the 3 kids and not getting involved with another
>marriage.
<<<
I hate to do it, but I have to agree with you. I didn't think this way a few
years ago, but I have learned the hard way.
Stephanie
Just Steff
I think the income shares idea is a great idea. I see nothing wrong with it as
long as full time min wage is imputed on the CP. I think if the kids are under
five then if the CP needs to stay home so be it. If that was how it was in the
marriage then it should not change just because of a divorce. Kids are first.
>
>Would you have the child in poverty, the NCP in poverty,
>or make it so that they have an equal standard of living?
I would rather see the NCP in poverty (with basic shelter, food, clothing,
transportation) than the child.
>
>How do you bring up the childs SoL without bringing up
>the CP's SoL?
It is impossible.
>
>How is CS payment NOT a form of involuntary servitude?
It's voluntary because having children is a voluntary act. Once you have the
child you're SOL.
Stephanie
Pat Winstanley
<just...@aol.com> writes
No... that's on top (and should be shared between the parents since both
benefit from the childcare that allows them both to earn) if required.
It might not be. That amount is for basic shelter, food, clothing and
general simple entertainment for the child.
--
Pat Winstanley
Daisy Duck
their daycare paid for. It isn't welfare...it's just a helping hand for
single parents.
Daisy Duck
Pat Winstanley wrote in message ...