Public Eye (Did you watch?)
nancy g.
> I don't know how many of you saw tonights Public Eye
> with Bryant Gumbel
(snip)
> For those who didn't see it..... you can find information at the url
> below. Please take a minute to vote in their poll on whether "Deadbeat
> Dads" should be jailed ....
Actually (and thankfully) their poll asks whether deadbeat PARENTS should
be penalized for failing to pay child support -- not just deadbeat DADS.
Try being a custodial father who hasn't received a penny of the thousands
of dollars in support due to him from his ex -- or just be in the position
of knowing and caring about a father in a situation like that -- and you'll
become aware of how stereotypical phrases like "deadbeat dads" can hurt,
because they lead to a (sometimes subconscious) association of the word "dad"
with the word "deadbeat." In the case of a custodial dad working full time
to support his kids and doing 100 percent of the at-home child care, NOTHING
could be further from the truth than the image that phrase conjures up.
Call them "deadbeat parents" if you want. Or call them scofflaws, or criminals,
or lawbreakers, or felons. But please -- don't call them all "dads."
(Okay, I'm putting the soapbox away now)
nancy g.
Stacy wrote:
(snip, snip)
>> Call them "deadbeat parents" if you want. Or call them scofflaws, or criminals,
>> or lawbreakers, or felons. But please -- don't call them all "dads."
> You're right and I apologize. I used the term "Deadbeat Dad" because
> the title of the article was "Deadbeat Dads - It's the Law."
>
> Stacy
Stacy, thanks for not taking my comments as a personal criticism. In case
you couldn't tell, I know a guy whose ex-WIFE is a PARENT who doesn't pay the
CS that she's required to. Before I met him, I'm sure I thought nothing of
the phrase "deadbeat dad" -- but now it jumps out at me every time I see it.
And yes, I noticed that the title of the article used the "DD" phrase, although
all the text within the article said "parents" instead. It's almost like somebody
edited the story but skipped the headings.
Sorry I missed seeing the show. It seems like it must have been interesting.
lilblakdog
> Actually (and thankfully) their poll asks whether deadbeat PARENTS should
> be penalized for failing to pay child support -- not just deadbeat DADS.
>
> ...
>
> Call them "deadbeat parents" if you want. Or call them scofflaws, or
criminals,
> or lawbreakers, or felons. But please -- don't call them all "dads."
Very well said! I'm pretty sure we're all guilty of using some sort of
derrogative term without realizing that we're hurting someone else in the
process. It's nice that there's generally someone out there to help us
see a little more clearly. Here, here!
lil
orbi...@yahoo.com
In article <3588A254...@tiac.net>,
>
> > For those who didn't see it..... you can find information at the url
> > below. Please take a minute to vote in their poll on whether "Deadbeat
> > Dads" should be jailed ....
> be penalized for failing to pay child support -- not just deadbeat DADS.
>
> Call them "deadbeat parents" if you want. Or call them scofflaws, or
criminals,
> or lawbreakers, or felons. But please -- don't call them all "dads."
> (Okay, I'm putting the soapbox away now)
Thank you for getting on the soapbox to begin with!! Describing divorce,
custody, visitation, and child-support issues in such gender-identified ways
makes an already difficult situation worse and implies certain biological
traits of goodness and badness inherent in Moms and(vs.) Dads. It just
continues to polarize the situation.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ChrisWa
I think you also need to analyse the amont of support. In my case I am
overpaying support because my wife's attourney understated the taxes
that I pay and my former attourney failed to supply proper rebuttals. I've
been to court twice going on a third time to get the support amount properly
adjusted. Before using the label "deadbeat" people should ask whether the
support amounts are affordable. I would think that many of these so-called
"deadbeats" are faced with the horrible delemma of choosing between their
own survival or making "support" payments.
Additionally if people choose jailing these individuals remember that the
U.S.
has the largest per-capita prison population in the world and many
corporations
make huge profits from the prison systems.
The entire system of support (spousal and child) need to be socialized.
It's the
only solution to spread out the burdens of divorce. Remember it takes a
village
to raise a child.
ChrisWa.
Victoria Lee Hirt
On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:41:03 GMT, sdi...@usa.net (Stacy) wrote:
-=>I don't know how many of you saw tonights Public Eye with Bryant
-=>Gumbel, but I thought it was well done. I am pleased with their
-=>coverage. It did a good job of showing how unfair the system is. In
-=>fact, I thought it made California look like it's run by the Nazi's.
Especially LA! They know it's not his child but he still has to pay
child support. That is outrageous. On top of that it means that any
man could be falsely set up to pay child support and not be able to
get out of it if there was a default judgement.
-=>For those who didn't see it..... you can find information at the url
-=>below. Please take a minute to vote in their poll on whether "Deadbeat
-=>Dads" should be jailed ....
I didn't think people could be jailed in this country because of their
financial debts and that's what is happening. They own money they
can't or won't pay and are being jailed. What's the difference
between these men and old debtor's prisons?
When I voted the results so far are - 71% no, 24% yes, 5% unsure.
-=>and take more than a minute to write to the
-=>show in their public opinion section. They read letters from viewers
-=>on every show. If a lot of us write there's a chance that at least
-=>one letter will be chosen.
-=>
-=>http://cgi.cbs.com:8000/mktg/mini/publiceye/email/email.cgi
I couldn't get this page to load. But here's another sight:
http://marketing.cbs.com/publiceye/index_voice.htm#email
Victoria "Lee"
hax...@scican.net
ICQ 6795420
- Everyone has a photographic memory. It's just that only a few people
have any film.
jfle...@pclink.com
Sorry, it may be a worthwhile activity, but I wouldn't watch
Mimi Rogers pose in nothing but highheels if Bryant Bumble had
anything to do with it.
(Try to imagine just how impressive I think Mimi Rogers would look in
nothing but highheels then fling a guess at how much I detest Gumble)
For the record, I think that true "deadbeat Dads should be jailed with
work release. Jailing them so they can sit and smoke and joke at the
crowbar hotel with all the other amateur dipshits will not improve the
collection of back support, or cut welfare costs, or reduce county
correctional budgets. Six months of working all day and then coming
back to your cell where a large hairy man wants to be your best
friend, now that might have an impact.
Just a thought.
TBrightman
I love this idea! But remember, equal opportunity..deadbeat women have to go
too.
Many a dangerous temptation comes to us in fine gay colours that are but
skin-deep.
Ken Fose
lilblakdog wrote in message <01bd9ad6$4cb74540$420067d1@watsons>...
>I'm pretty sure we're all guilty of using some sort of
>derrogative term without realizing that we're hurting someone else in
the
>process.
I'm pretty sure that every term we use is going to be a derrogative term
to somebody.
Back in the old days, words were hurtful when they were intended to be
hurtful.
Didn't mean to take out my pet peeve on you!!! :)
Regards,
Ken
Ken Fose
ChrisWa wrote in message <6mbfuf$v...@news.microsoft.com>...
>... and many
>corporations
>make huge profits from the prison systems.
Selling what, ball and chains?
>The entire system of support (spousal and child) need to be socialized.
You can't be serious. I guess having to work until July every year to
pay income taxes and hidden taxes before I start to keep some of my own
money isn't enough?
Why is the solution always other people's money?
>It's the
>only solution to spread out the burdens of divorce.
How about not getting married, and/or not having kids? Or having some
marketable skills so you can take care of your own burden?
> Remember it takes a
>village
>to raise a child.
Only when the kids' parents are idiots.
Ken
Tinger
jfle...@pclink.com wrote:
>
> For the record, I think that true "deadbeat Dads should be jailed with
> work release. Jailing them so they can sit and smoke and joke at the
> crowbar hotel with all the other amateur dipshits will not improve the
> collection of back support, or cut welfare costs, or reduce county
> correctional budgets. Six months of working all day and then coming
> back to your cell where a large hairy man wants to be your best
> friend, now that might have an impact.
And I hope you agree to the same set of rules for those deadbeats who
happen to be Mothers in terms of working all day (to some, something
they should be doing anyway) and coming back to their cell where a large
hairy woman wears a rubber glove up to her elbow. Same impact?
Seriously, let's feed these people to the public correctional system and
add to the fact that one parent may use the excuse of caring for the
children for not working and being on public assistance; or put him/her
in a public training program with public child care while still on
welfare, or being forced into a low paying job and still needing public
assistance. Where does the entitlements stop? When do we stop giving
everyone a free ride to life and instead offer a deterent to the single
parent "family?"
It appears that few are going to get beyond requiring public assistance
sometime. Therefore we will get the Nazi-type DA's not giving once ounce
of who or where their welfare repayment money is coming from. Just as
long as they get it.
--
Jon "Tinger" Tingblad - The High Priest of Janitorial Services
**************************************************************
Visit the ChiGuys's - http://www.chiguys.com/
Horn Rock Bands, featuring CHICAGO.
**************************************************************
Pagoo Me at: http://www.pagoo.com/cgi-bin/me.dll?8149136
jfle...@pclink.com
Well, sure, I suppose (in terms of the question about the impact that
is) It wasn't my intent to single out men who refuse to pay their
child support. Women are capable of the same type of adolescent
stupidity, no doubt. So I should have made this gender neutral and
basically screwed up again.
And understand I am talking about "true" deadbeats, in the sense of
having no good reason to refuse to pay their support except that it is
a means of inflicting hurt on the ex-spouse and screw the kids in the
process. There are many excusable reasons not to pay support that
have to do with legititmate problems. I am only interested in casting
dispersions upon those I have already defined.
Except, I gotta tell you, that rubber glove bit is pretty sick . . .
Don't you think? Or not? Maybe a leather glove with bunny fur. . .
Maybe . . . oh the hell with it.
orbi...@yahoo.com
In article <6mbfuf$v...@news.microsoft.com>,
"ChrisWa" <chr...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> The entire system of support (spousal and child) need to be socialized.
> It's the
> only solution to spread out the burdens of divorce. Remember it takes a
> village
> to raise a child.
>
> ChrisWa.
>
> I believe I'm making an understatement when I say you've *seriously*
misinterpreted the saying! Denise
orbi...@yahoo.com
In article <35894f34...@news.netdirect.net>,
hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee" Hirt
>
> I didn't think people could be jailed in this country because of their
> financial debts and that's what is happening. They own money they
> can't or won't pay and are being jailed. What's the difference
> between these men and old debtor's prisons?
>
Hi. I didn't see the show, haven't followed this thread closely, but I can
tell you that "deadbeat" parents are jailed for willful and continued
noncompliance with court order. That's a pretty common outcome for contempt
of court. I really liked the photographic memory thing! Denise
Leslie
Ken Fose wrote:
> > Remember it takes a
> >village
> >to raise a child.
>
> Only when the kids' parents are idiots.
>
> Ken
I love this!!! Great line, Ken.
Leslie
Julie
But don't you wish he would just get right to the point, instead of
beating around the bush? hahaha... ;-)
Well said, Ken!
Julie
janelaw
>
> I didn't think people could be jailed in this country because of their
> financial debts and that's what is happening. They own money they
> can't or won't pay and are being jailed. What's the difference
> between these men and old debtor's prisons?
>
You don't get jailed for owing money. The crime is
intentionally disobeying a court order. As I understand it,
before it issues the child support order, the court finds that
you owe the money AND that you have the ability to pay. You
bring in all your tax returns and other financial papers, and
the judge decides what you can and should pay per week or
month. If your financial situation changes, you can go back
into court and have the order amended.
I believe (and I certainly could be wrong) that debtors' prisons
were abolished because people were jailed whether or not they
had any ability to pay. Once people were confined, they could
not leave until they paid the money. Nowadays, if people get
too far in debt, they can declare bankruptcy. I don't know
whether past due child support is dischargeable in bankruptcy.
I clipped the following from:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/csra.html
the Child
Support Recovery Act of 1992, Title 18, United
States Code,
Section 228, which makes it a Federal offense
for willfully
failing to pay a past due support obligation
with respect to
a child who resides in another state, when the
past due
support either exceeds $5000 or remains unpaid
for longer
than a year.
I am in favor of the law because interstate collection of child
support debt is so burdensome on the custodial parent. State
courts have jurisdiction over family matters like divorce and
child support. This law makes it a federal crime to WILLFULLY
fail to obey a child support order when you live in a different
state.
Victoria Lee Hirt
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 16:12:59 GMT, orbi...@yahoo.com wrote:
-=>In article <35894f34...@news.netdirect.net>,
-=> hax...@scican.net (Victoria "Lee" Hirt
-=>>
-=>> I didn't think people could be jailed in this country because of their
-=>> financial debts and that's what is happening. They own money they
-=>> can't or won't pay and are being jailed. What's the difference
-=>> between these men and old debtor's prisons?
-=>>
-=>
-=>Hi. I didn't see the show, haven't followed this thread closely, but I can
-=>tell you that "deadbeat" parents are jailed for willful and continued
-=>noncompliance with court order. That's a pretty common outcome for contempt
-=>of court. I really liked the photographic memory thing! Denise
These "fathers" weren't the fathers of the children but were still
forced to pay child support even thought they had DNA tests to prove
it!
Ben Johnson
In article <358b1b6a...@news.netdirect.net> Victoria,
hax...@scican.net writes:
>These "fathers" weren't the fathers of the children but were still
>forced to pay child support even thought they had DNA tests to prove
>it!
The states get Federal money based on how much they can collect from
anyone in child-support, so it is in the states' best interest to go
after anyone they can soak for a few bucks whether acutally related to
the child or not. If you look at the laws covering paternity in most
states there are very severe limits on ability to even appeal, and
Maryland has a law that essentially says the courts can, and should,
issue a suport order even if the person accused is provably not the
father of the child.
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mfc73$2pt$1...@news3.mr.net>, Ben Johnson
<john...@maroon.cr.umn.edu> writes
Okay... so that's wrong and shouldn't happen.
You know, a lot of mums would support you fighting this sort of issue if
you don't alienate them first by assuming (and accusing) that every
mother is doing this in cohort with the courts... just because they are
mums or CPs...
Fair?
--
Pat Winstanley
Kenneth S.
I believe that Hillary Clinton, and others like her (such as
Marian Wright Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund) have seriously
-- and deliberately -- misinterpreted the proverb about how it takes a
village to raise a child.
I grew up in a community where all parents, and indeed all
older people, unthinkingly assumed that it was part of their
responsibility to see that children didn't get into trouble -- either
trouble of their own making, or trouble of someone else's making. So
they would intervene, if necessary, if they saw that bad situations
involving children were developing. Thus, if my father saw children
misbehaving on a bus, he would speak to them about it, and they would
pay attention. That was the notion behind the idea that it takes a
village to raise a child. It wasn't the notion that it takes Hillary
Clinton, Marion Edelman, and all the other shallow busybodies to
involve themselves in the raising of children. It wasn't the notion
that politicians and bureaucrats should be involved in the raising of
children. That concept is just a power play by the likes of Clinton
and Edelman.
God help us if the wife of Bill Clinton is going to have
anything to do with the raising of any significant number of children.
I liked the bumper sticker that appeared after Hillary Clinton's (or
rather her ghostwriter's] book came out. It showed Hillary in
profile, with the comment "It takes a village IDIOT . . . ."
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 15:56:49 GMT, orbi...@yahoo.com wrote:
>In article <6mbfuf$v...@news.microsoft.com>,
> "ChrisWa" <chr...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>> The entire system of support (spousal and child) need to be socialized.
>> It's the
>> only solution to spread out the burdens of divorce. Remember it takes a
>> village
>> to raise a child.
>>
>> ChrisWa.
>>
>> I believe I'm making an understatement when I say you've *seriously*
>misinterpreted the saying! Denise
Victoria Lee Hirt
On 20 Jun 1998 04:01:39 GMT, Ben Johnson <john...@maroon.cr.umn.edu>
wrote:
-=>In article <358b1b6a...@news.netdirect.net> Victoria,
-=>hax...@scican.net writes:
-=>>These "fathers" weren't the fathers of the children but were still
-=>>forced to pay child support even thought they had DNA tests to prove
-=>>it!
-=>
-=>The states get Federal money based on how much they can collect from
-=>anyone in child-support, so it is in the states' best interest to go
-=>after anyone they can soak for a few bucks whether acutally related to
-=>the child or not.
This wasn't a few bucks. As it stands now these men will pay child
support for children everyone KNOWS is not theirs until the child is
18.
-=>If you look at the laws covering paternity in most
-=>states there are very severe limits on ability to even appeal, and
-=>Maryland has a law that essentially says the courts can, and should,
-=>issue a suport order even if the person accused is provably not the
-=>father of the child.
This is what California is doing also.
Dorothy
Another very sorry example in the history of American law that a person
gets punished for something he/she did not do.
Its ok, imho, when the person gets a jail term or fine for contempt of
court...but when he or she further must make "amends to society"= CS
payments, when further evidence shows (conclusively, an assumption I am
making here) that he is not the responsible party, then indeed, that is a
miscarriage of justice.
Where are the lawyers who do work for free for persons not able to pay?
This was sent out over national television on purpose and there is a door
of opportunity to challenge the correctness of these laws! WAKE UP interest
groups and lobbies. I am stepping down from my soapbox.
Sorry, didn't see the show; I only receive CNN over here. A few ideas:
Where do you find public email addresses for your state and federal
representatives? How do they know what their constituents are thinking if
you don't let them know. Let enough of them know that you are thinking
politically and maybe they will become involved.
Should the woman possibly be held in contempt of court if she made this
statement knowing it was untrue? (Don't know what the form of evidence
gathering is to get the name of the unfortunate male.) She should be
examined for possible slander and for false representation, a tort in CA,
for example, for fraud and (maybe) perjury....and remember, the state is
also party here.
So where is the interest group with the money and organization to step up
and take this problem on? Is it a precedence case? Is this not something
protected under the constitution?
D-
Victoria "Lee" Hirt <hax...@scican.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<358bb6de...@news.netdirect.net>...
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <3XXfNUCB...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <6mfc73$2pt$1...@news3.mr.net>, Ben Johnson
> <john...@maroon.cr.umn.edu> writes
> >In article <358b1b6a...@news.netdirect.net> Victoria,
> >hax...@scican.net writes:
> >
> >The states get Federal money based on how much they can collect from
> >states there are very severe limits on ability to even appeal, and
>
> Okay... so that's wrong and shouldn't happen.
>
> You know, a lot of mums would support you fighting this sort of issue if
> you don't alienate them first by assuming (and accusing) that every
> mother is doing this in cohort with the courts... just because they are
> mums or CPs...
>
> Fair?
I saw the show in question and in one of the cases (the older German man who
had the same name as someone else who had accumulated some $200,000 in
arrearages) the fault lay entirely with the District Attorney's office and
the appalling Gil Garcetti. However, in the other cases, the fault was with
the women who had named these men as the fathers of their children when they
should at least have suspected that this was not the case. Then, when the
accused managed to prove themselves innocent (how far have we come that THIS
is necessary?!) after being presumed guilty, that STILL didn't matter. You
might be entitled to argue that mums aren't in cahoots with the courts but
you can't claim that these women didn't wrongfully point the finger at
someone and then stand idly by and allow the injustice to continue.
However, I will agree with you that the greedy swine mums/CPs who are buying
into this process for reasons of bitterness or vengeance are not doing so
because they are women or CPs, they're doing it because they are swine.
They'd be swine if they were men. This isn't a gender issue, it is an issue
of idiotic laws applied by people with political axes to grind. The result
may seem gender oriented because men are most often at the wrong end of the
sword but in reality it is simply politics run amok.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mejjj$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > I didn't think people could be jailed in this country because of their
> >
>
> intentionally disobeying a court order. As I understand it,
> before it issues the child support order, the court finds that
> you owe the money AND that you have the ability to pay. You
> bring in all your tax returns and other financial papers, and
> the judge decides what you can and should pay per week or
> month. If your financial situation changes, you can go back
> into court and have the order amended.
In theory, this is how it should work. However, since "child-support" awards
and the penalties for not complying with them are calculated with absolutely
no regard for financial reality, we are right back at "debtor's prison". Not
only that, if you owe "child-support" in California, you can be jailed for
"failure to seek or accept employment commensurate with your skills and
ability". How about that. If someone loses a nice aerospace job because of
cutbacks and has to resort to flipping burgers then they can be jailed for
simply that. More to the point, if you get fed up with working for other
people and you want to start your own business, even though it means a
temporary pay cut, you can be sent to jail for that. Go figure...
> I believe (and I certainly could be wrong) that debtors' prisons
> were abolished because people were jailed whether or not they
> had any ability to pay. Once people were confined, they could
> not leave until they paid the money. Nowadays, if people get
> too far in debt, they can declare bankruptcy. I don't know
> whether past due child support is dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Certain things are NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy. Back taxes and child-
support are among them.
> I clipped the following from:
> http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/csra.html
> the Child
> Support Recovery Act of 1992, Title 18, United
> States Code,
> Section 228, which makes it a Federal offense
> for willfully
> failing to pay a past due support obligation
> with respect to
> a child who resides in another state, when the
> past due
> support either exceeds $5000 or remains unpaid
> for longer
> than a year.
>
> I am in favor of the law because interstate collection of child
> support debt is so burdensome on the custodial parent. State
> courts have jurisdiction over family matters like divorce and
> child support. This law makes it a federal crime to WILLFULLY
> fail to obey a child support order when you live in a different
> state.
>
Which would be fine IF...
1. Child-support awards were based on the obligor's ability to pay.
They aren't. The courts use a lavish hand when exercising their right to
impute income to the NCP. Particularly when the NCP has recently taken a job
with less pay. The assumption is that the *only* reason an NCP would take a
cut in pay would be to try to reduce their payments to the CP. While this may
be true in some cases, there is no need for the CP to show any proof of this
and there is no way for the NCP to appeal or refute any evidence offered.
2. So-called "child-support" actually supported the child.
One of the other things to which I *strongly* object is the idea that NCPs are
presumed guilty of neglecting their children. This idea is fundamental to the
"child support" industry and the strange thing is that it is as deeply-held as
it is offensive. If you look at the laws across the country having to do with
"child-support" you will see one recurring theme: The money is to be paid to
the CP with absolutely no expectation of accountability. In many states, they
will go so far as to openly state that it is appropriate for the CP to use the
"child-support" to improve the CP's standard of living. Even if that is not
openly stated, talk to someone who is paying "child-support" to a CP who is
spending that money only incidentally on the child but instead using it for
things like rent, utilities, car-payments, vacations, cigarettes, alcohol,
drugs, etc... and see what recourse they have to prevent that misuse. I can
sum it up in one word: None.
3. There were an alternative to mandatory payments and wage-garnishing. If
the system were logical or just, the practice of having the court order
payments and wage-garnishments would be a last resort for the cases of true
deadbeats. Ordinary, decent and responsible parents would be allowed to
support their children on their own. If a parent tried to run out on their
family, then the courts would step in and introduce the draconian measures.
This would also increase the chance of reining in deadbeats because the CSE
agencies would have fewer cases to track - they could expend more time, efford
and resources on each.
Some good Shaw quotes for the current CS system...
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of
Paul"
or
"No person is good enough to be someone else's master"
Mike & Peg
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in article
<6mmci5$2be$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <6mejjj$s...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > You don't get jailed for owing money. The crime is
> > intentionally disobeying a court order. As I understand it,
> > before it issues the child support order, the court finds that
> > you owe the money AND that you have the ability to pay. You
> > bring in all your tax returns and other financial papers, and
> > the judge decides what you can and should pay per week or
> > month. If your financial situation changes, you can go back
> > into court and have the order amended.
> In theory, this is how it should work. However, since "child-support"
awards
> and the penalties for not complying with them are calculated with
absolutely
> no regard for financial reality, we are right back at "debtor's prison".
Not
> only that, if you owe "child-support" in California, you can be jailed
for
> "failure to seek or accept employment commensurate with your skills and
> ability". How about that. If someone loses a nice aerospace job because
of
> cutbacks and has to resort to flipping burgers then they can be jailed
for
> simply that. More to the point, if you get fed up with working for other
> people and you want to start your own business, even though it means a
> temporary pay cut, you can be sent to jail for that. Go figure...
>
Hello??? You completely contradict yourself...us custodial parents are well
aware of the ncp's rights, which includes the right to go back into court
and ask for the child support to be modified if the ncp's income level
decreases. You don't get sent to jail for asking for that modification,
however, if you are stupid enough to not pay your child support and not ask
for a modification if you need one, then you deserve to be charged &
jailed!
<snip>
> Certain things are NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy. Back taxes and
child-
> support are among them.
>
If you decide you cannot pay your debts for whatever reason, should that
give you a right to file bankruptcy on child support? If the children were
in your care and you had a hard time making ends meet would you bring them
to the courts and ask to have them moved from your care? You can't file
"bankruptcy" on your children, therefore, why should you be allowed to no
longer pay for their upbringing?
><snip>
> 1. Child-support awards were based on the obligor's ability to pay.
>
> They aren't. The courts use a lavish hand when exercising their right to
> impute income to the NCP. Particularly when the NCP has recently taken a
job
> with less pay. The assumption is that the *only* reason an NCP would
take a
> cut in pay would be to try to reduce their payments to the CP. While
this may
> be true in some cases, there is no need for the CP to show any proof of
this
> and there is no way for the NCP to appeal or refute any evidence offered.
Hello...where have you been? Courts ask for financial information and
based SOLELY on the ncp's income, they determine an amount for child
support!
>
<snip>
So what, the rent, utlities, car payments, etc. does not benefit the child?
How is paying for the house you & the child(ren) are living in misusing
the child support money? Some do misuse the money on things such as
cigarettes, alcohol & drugs...however, does that mean EVERY cp does? I
THINK NOT!
>
Obviously you are a ncp who does not believe in paying child support...well
as a cp who receives NO support...I wish to welcome you to the world of
dead beat parents who believe children cost nothing to raise!
cg...@ime.net
>Hello...where have you been? Courts ask for financial information and
based SOLELY on the ncp's income, they determine an amount for child
support!<
Hello back to you on whatever planet you live. Courts can and DO impute
income (to men, that is) in accord with what they/the cp accuses that he
might be able to make - even when he cannot at all do so.
If your ncp (what a facist term - "custody" is for *prisoners*) died
broke tomorrow, you would have to meet all those expenses anyway. If you
had no children at all, you would still have to pay your rent & every
other living expense - it is only the small incremental cost increase (if
any) that your (partly) children necessitate. Your tone makes you sound
more like a deadbeat (in attitude and outlook) than any non-paying man.
The forcing of ANY parent to financially give to their own children (or,
more accurately, to their other controlling parent for use as they see
fit) is simple proof that it is the government, not either parent, who
owns the children. Family finances and the upbringing of their children
are not the rightful business of of a republic.
janelaw
cg...@ime.net wrote:
>
> snip
> The forcing of ANY parent to financially give to their own children (or,
> more accurately, to their other controlling parent for use as they see
> fit) is simple proof that it is the government, not either parent, who
Surely, you misspoke. Did you really mean to say that anyone
OWNS children?
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <01bd9e38$00f8bb60$1310...@mikepeg.tvutel.com>,
"Mike & Peg" <mik...@tvutel.com> wrote:
>
>
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in article
> <6mmci5$2be$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > You don't get jailed for owing money. The crime is
> > > intentionally disobeying a court order. As I understand it,
> > > before it issues the child support order, the court finds that
> > > you owe the money AND that you have the ability to pay. You
> > > bring in all your tax returns and other financial papers, and
> > > the judge decides what you can and should pay per week or
> > > month. If your financial situation changes, you can go back
> > > into court and have the order amended.
>
> > In theory, this is how it should work. However, since "child-support"
> awards
> > and the penalties for not complying with them are calculated with
> absolutely
> > no regard for financial reality, we are right back at "debtor's prison".
> Not
> > only that, if you owe "child-support" in California, you can be jailed
> for
> > "failure to seek or accept employment commensurate with your skills and
> > ability". How about that. If someone loses a nice aerospace job because
> of
> > cutbacks and has to resort to flipping burgers then they can be jailed
> for
> > simply that. More to the point, if you get fed up with working for other
> > people and you want to start your own business, even though it means a
> > temporary pay cut, you can be sent to jail for that. Go figure...
> >
>
> aware of the ncp's rights, which includes the right to go back into court
> and ask for the child support to be modified if the ncp's income level
> decreases. You don't get sent to jail for asking for that modification,
> however, if you are stupid enough to not pay your child support and not ask
> for a modification if you need one, then you deserve to be charged &
> jailed!
Don't forget that the judge also has some rights, one right is to completely
ignore the NCPs actual income and calculate the support obligation based on
imputed income.
> <snip>
> > Certain things are NOT dischargeable in bankruptcy. Back taxes and
> child-
> > support are among them.
> >
> If you decide you cannot pay your debts for whatever reason, should that
> give you a right to file bankruptcy on child support? If the children were
> in your care and you had a hard time making ends meet would you bring them
> to the courts and ask to have them moved from your care? You can't file
> "bankruptcy" on your children, therefore, why should you be allowed to no
> longer pay for their upbringing?
But "child-support" has nothing to do with supporting children. It is about
supporting the CP.
> ><snip>
>
> > 1. Child-support awards were based on the obligor's ability to pay.
> >
> > They aren't. The courts use a lavish hand when exercising their right to
> > impute income to the NCP. Particularly when the NCP has recently taken a
> job
> > with less pay. The assumption is that the *only* reason an NCP would
> take a
> > cut in pay would be to try to reduce their payments to the CP. While
> this may
> > be true in some cases, there is no need for the CP to show any proof of
> this
> > and there is no way for the NCP to appeal or refute any evidence offered.
>
> Hello...where have you been? Courts ask for financial information and
> based SOLELY on the ncp's income, they determine an amount for child
> support!
You're wrong. Support awards are NOT based "solely" on the NCPs income.
That is one of the problems with the system. Courts do ask for financial
information (income and expense declarations) but they don't consider the
NCPs expenses - even those which would be considered as being for the benefit
of the children if the NCP had custody of the child.
> >
> <snip>
> So what, the rent, utlities, car payments, etc. does not benefit the child?
They may indirectly benefit the child but they are properly the sole
responsibility of the CP since the CP would have these expenses whether the
child existed or not.
> How is paying for the house you & the child(ren) are living in misusing
> the child support money? Some do misuse the money on things such as
> cigarettes, alcohol & drugs...however, does that mean EVERY cp does? I
> THINK NOT!
If you want to call it "child-support" then it must be for the sole benefit of
the children. What we call "child-support" in this country is more accurately
described as "spousal support" or "alimony".
> >
>
> Obviously you are a ncp who does not believe in paying child support...well
> as a cp who receives NO support...I wish to welcome you to the world of
> dead beat parents who believe children cost nothing to raise!
You're almost right. I do not believe that the majority of responsible NCPs
should have to give a huge cost-of-living subsidy to the CP. They should be
allowed to support their children. How novel! If they turn out to be
deadbeats then let's slam the hammer down on their by all means! But to make
the blanket assumption that all NCPs are deadbeats is just plain idiotic.
But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have the
responsibility to support their children. You're falling in with the
entitlement whores out there who will attempt to rationalize the mass transfer
of money by slithering behind children. You're better than that (I hope).
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> In article <01bd9e38$00f8bb60$1310...@mikepeg.tvutel.com>,
> "Mike & Peg" <mik...@tvutel.com> wrote:
> > So what, the rent, utlities, car payments, etc. does not benefit the child?
>
> They may indirectly benefit the child but they are properly the sole
> responsibility of the CP since the CP would have these expenses whether the
> child existed or not.
>
> > How is paying for the house you & the child(ren) are living in misusing
> > the child support money? Some do misuse the money on things such as
> > cigarettes, alcohol & drugs...however, does that mean EVERY cp does? I
> > THINK NOT!
>
> If you want to call it "child-support" then it must be for the sole benefit of
> the children. What we call "child-support" in this country is more accurately
> described as "spousal support" or "alimony".
>
Actually Jon, please remember that sometimes rent (or a portion thereof) can be
directly attributable to the children...ie: 1 BR vs. 2 BR. And in some rare
instances the automobile may also be attributable. If the parent had no use for
transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to work) and
now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes, that too is
a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child, unless the
child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc. I'm sure
you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items, when they
would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that sometimes
a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.
Dan Daugherty
You're probably right about this in a lot of cases. But also consider there
may be a huge difference of opinion about what comprises "support". I was
married to a woman who was collecting child support. Her ex made it clear
he had no intention of paying any part of the kids' college expenses. Texas
law does not require parents to be liable for child's college expenses, and
NCPs are not required to pay support after child is 18 and graduated from
high school. So in this case CP feels the parents should contribute to
college expenses and NCP doesn't. Practically speaking that means part of
CS has to be put aside for college expenses, and I assure you that if that
view is taken, there is no question that the CS would at best only cover but
about the half of the children's actual support (or less). Also, for a
while, her ex didn't pay CS, and after lawyers and settlements, she received
an average of only about 75% net on the actual amount assessed during the
first 4 years after her divorce from him. Her ex made it clear he intended
to continue giving her hassles over nonpayment, so in his case,
over-assessing the CS by about 33% would have actually made it come out
about right.
Ya know, as husband of the CP, I didn't want to see the guy get soaked for
an unfair amount. But it sure is hard to figure out what is fair. And if
fair could be determined, I did indeed feel he should pay it. As much as
anything it became an issue of control. He had no say in how much was spent
on the kids or how it was spent. There was a huge difference of opinion
between the CP and NCP regarding what constituted proper care. The CP
thought the NCP was irresponsible. The NCP thought the CP was wasteful in
her spending, lavished too much money on the kids and was overprotective.
They were sort of both right. One thing is for sure, they would never ever
ever have agreed on what was fair. And come time for college, the NCP would
no longer contribute to support (which is also a point many parents argue,
whether the kids should have to pay their own way or not).
I think the real problem is in our "one-size-fits-all" system of laws. The
law ought to be more complicated, and ought to factor in more than just a
simple formula based on NCP's income. Even if the results are the same, at
least the NCP can feel better about how the answer was determined (or maybe
not). Along the same lines, if circumstances change (on either side), there
ought to be a low cost method to handle changes in support. And, alimony
should not be sneaked in disguised as child support.
-- Dan
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in message
<6monl8$np$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
<snip>
>If you want to call it "child-support" then it must be for the sole benefit
of
>the children. What we call "child-support" in this country is more
accurately
>described as "spousal support" or "alimony".
<snip>
cg...@ime.net
>Surely, you misspoke. Did you really mean to say that anyone
OWNS children?<
A horrific statement, I grant you. Yes, I really mean it. In a very
real sense, the government indeed owns your children as its human capital
asset (our US Dept of LABOR plainly says so), has legal authority and
responsibilities over them that you lack, and is now the true parent in
every meaningful way. Try bucking them, and see what happens.
cg...@ime.net
>But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have the responsibility to support their children.<
No. But please don't tell me that the government should have any right
to dictate whether they do or not or to what extent. The government
makes a lousy FAMILY.
cg...@ime.net
>If the parent had no use for
transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
work) and
now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
that too is
a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
unless the
child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc.
I'm sure
you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
when they
would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
sometimes
a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
Perhaps, those INCREMENTAL costs incurred. How much hot extra hot water
does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car rationalization
- there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
"wants").
We ae very tired of half of divorced parents being legally forced into
Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
Dan Daugherty
cg...@ime.net wrote in message <6mpc8d$8ep$6...@news.harvard.net>...
>But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have the responsibility to support their children.<
Ken Fose
cg...@ime.net wrote in message <6mpc8d$8ep$6...@news.harvard.net>...
>>But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have
the responsibility to support their children.<
>
>No. But please don't tell me that the government should have any right
>to dictate whether they do or not or to what extent. The government
>makes a lousy FAMILY.
Are you saying that it doesn't take a village?
Char
cg...@ime.net wrote:
> >If the parent had no use for
> transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
> work) and
> now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
> that too is
> a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
> unless the
> child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc.
> I'm sure
> you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
> when they
> would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
> sometimes
> a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
>
> Perhaps, those INCREMENTAL costs incurred. How much hot extra hot water
> does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car rationalization
> - there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
> and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
> "wants").
>
I notice you left out the rent. Maybe we are at least in agreement on that
eh? However, as I said, in some rare cases, yes, the car rationalization
fits. I never said the NCP had to pay for the car, yet if some of the CS is
used to help with the car costs, they really shouldn't complain when they
know it is a necessity in these cases. As far as the "incremental"
utilities...doesn't matter. If one parent has to pay more than 50% then they
are getting the raw deal. Incremental or not.
Mike & Peg
First of all I need to respond to 2 things that have been posted regarding
this thread...I am not a dead beat parent - I am a custodial parent of a
beautiful 6 year old girl, and also have a 10 month old son with my new
husband.
Secondly, Jon...I would think twice about calling someone you don't even
know a whore! I guess your statement about me being a whore says it all,
you obviously don't have any respect towards women and stoop to name
calling to better yourself! I have never talked to you so how can you
decide what my lifestyle is like? Real mature Jon!
I don't know where many of you are posting from, but where I'm from the
child support guidelines are very strict. They take into consideration the
NCP's income, living expenses, insurance, etc. then make a determination
based on that. I am not a CP who goes after the NCP for money, when I was
receiving child support the money was put into my checking account and was
used for a variety of things (some directly used on my daughter, some on
the household, etc). Anyone who actually knows my family, knows that my
daughter is not deprived of anything. I raise my daughter well, and I
resent the statements regarding CP using the money to better themselves
instead of the children. As a matter of fact, I went to bat for my ex
husband when the county was trying to raise his child support to a level
which I felt was unnecessary. We are not a rich family, but we manage to
make ends meet.
I have remarried and my husband is a NCP who pays child support so I see
things from both angles. We don't question his ex-wife as to where she
spends the child support money, we know from seeing his son that he is
taken care of and that's what really matters to us. We don't get involved
in power struggles with ex's over money.
My ex-husband decided to discontinue paying his support about 2 years ago
and moved, I do not have a current address, place of employment or anything
from him. Which is just fine by me, I am perfectly happy raising my
daughter without any help from him.
The bottom line with us is that the children are taken care of, not where
the money is spent!
Peg
Mike & Peg
Ken Fose <ken...@netacc.net> wrote in article
<35906...@news.netacc.net>...
>
> cg...@ime.net wrote in message <6mpc8d$8ep$6...@news.harvard.net>...
> >>But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have
> the responsibility to support their children.<
> >
> >No. But please don't tell me that the government should have any right
> >to dictate whether they do or not or to what extent. The government
> >makes a lousy FAMILY.
>
>
> Are you saying that it doesn't take a village?
>
EXCELLENT POINT KEN!!!!
Cici in Texas
On 23 Jun 1998 23:08:54 GMT, cg...@ime.net wrote:
>>If the parent had no use for
>transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
>work) and
>now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
>that too is
>a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
>unless the
>child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc.
>I'm sure
>you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
>when they
>would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
>sometimes
>a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
>
>Perhaps, those INCREMENTAL costs incurred. How much hot extra hot water
>does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car rationalization
>- there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
>and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
>"wants").
>
>We ae very tired of half of divorced parents being legally forced into
>Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
Ah. Now I understand. You're thinking of all this through a filter
that says 'everybody has LITTLE kids.' No, it doesn't take a lot
of extra money to bathe or feed a three-year-old (although that
selfsame three-year-old *will* require daycare), but lemme tell ya,
honey, those utility and grocery costs increase logarithmically when
that kid hits about age 12. Every parent of teenagers I've ever
talked to -- married, single, you-name-it -- says the same thing, "I
can't BELIEVE how much those kids eat! And shower! Twice, three
times a day, and they're ALWAYS washing their hair! Is there some
government program for a shampoo subsidy? Can you get a grant to
offset the utility costs of blow dryers and hot rollers? And let's
not even TALK about the laundry -- those machines are running day
and night!"
Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
*just* for bread and milk.
Yeah, buddy, we're livin' high on the hog on that CS check here, you
bet!
It was really kind of funny -- the last time their dad was in town,
he would come and get the kids in the morning and when he brought
them back in the evening, the first thing he did every day was
launch into a five-minute rant beginning with, "My GOD, I can't
believe how much these kids EAT!" The third or fourth time this
happened, I just let him run down and then smiled and said, "David,
you don't have to convince *me*, I deal with it every day of the
year." From the look on his face, I think it may have actually sunk
in. Oh, not to the point that he sends more grocery money, of
course, but at least he quit bitching about it. I guess that's
something.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mpc8d$8ep$6...@news.harvard.net>,
cg...@ime.net wrote:
>
> >But don't tell me for a minute that I don't believe that parents have the
responsibility to support their children.<
>
> to dictate whether they do or not or to what extent. The government
> makes a lousy FAMILY.
I think that's what I said.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mpjam$brt$1...@news.jump.net>,
"Dan Daugherty" <d...@bga.com> wrote:
>
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
> ------=_NextPart_000_001A_01BD9EE2.6C807F80
> Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> The govt. has the right only insofar as its power is derived from the
> people. The govt. reflects the will of the people and to the extent we
> want to be protected from one another, we give govt. the power to do so,
> even if it means that power may someday be directed against any one of
> us individually. To the extent any one of us could become a CP someday,
> we certainly want the power of the govt. behind us to compel the NCP to
> contribute to support of the children. If we do not want this, then
> change the law. Whether this is a "right" or not is beside the point.
> This is what the people want.
And if the people want to make it against the for you to not brush your teeth
before you go to bed? You have to draw the line somewhere, don't you?
The point is that the entitlement whores in this country have done an
excellent job of painting the "child-support" issue in terms which are
favorable to them. Anyone who opposes their insensate greed is dismissed as
someone who doesn't care about their children or is out to hurt women. That
is the worst sort of political crap.
And I resent your characterization of me as a hypocrite who only opposes the
"child-support" industry because I'm not a CP. You're wrong. I would LOVE
to be a CP. Not only that, if I did get custody of my son, I would
absolutely and categorically refuse to allow the government to go after my ex
for support. The way I look at it, if someone chooses to be a CP, then they
bloody well better be prepared to take responsibility for their choice. If
they can't, then it isn't their choice to make. My ex chose unilaterally to
be a "single mom". Then she unilaterally chose to make me subsidize her
decision and then added insult to injury by forbidding me to spend a
reasonable amount of time with my son.
The saddest part of all is that there are hundreds of thousands of women out
there just like her who are doing exactly the same thing. They are an insult
to the parents out there who were left in a lurch by deadbeats and really do
need to the system to go out and collect money from these cretins. People who
collect "child-support" when they don't really need it are like people who
call 911 when they have the flu or people who don't pull over to the side of
the road when they hear an ambulance siren behind them.
> The govt. doesn't dictate whether or not I let my kids stay up late,
> watch TV or eat nothing but junk food. The govt. does have boundaries I
> am not allowed to legally exceed, and this is how it should be. We have
> freedom within certain reasonable boundaries. If you believe those
> boundaries are not reasonable, you have every right to try to get the
> laws changed.
"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of
Paul".
The "family law" (i.e. divorce, child-support collection, etc...) is a $100
Billion dollar a year business in this country. You have a better chance of
socializing medicine or re-legalizing drugs in this country then you do of
reforming a corrupt system which benefits politicians, radical feminists,
lawyers and entitlement leeches.
But, we will continue to try. ;->
Greg Brewer
I thought I'd put my 2 cents in here.
The problem I have with the argument is that it seems to assume that the CP
bears the cost alone. I am the NCP and my child is with me slightly less
than half the time. That child goes through more toilet paper in 2 days
than I use in 2 weeks. My ex does not allow the child to bring clothes
other than what she is wearing. So I have to buy just as many clothes,
just as much hot water, electricity, laundery soap, bath soap, shampoo,
food, etc as her mother.
During the periods that the child is with me, her mother is providing 0%
support. I have heard people justifying this by mentioning that her mother
has on-going cost that continue even when she is gone. But, I have
identical cost. About the only thing I can think of that her mother buys
that I don't is school supplies. I contribute some by buying an occasional
notebook during the school year. If I had nothing to do with my child, the
costs to my ex-wife would almost double.
Just thought I'd throw that in since it seemed to be missing.
Cici in Texas <ccl...@xspamgte.net> wrote in article
<6mquud$lgi$5...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
Greg Brewer
> I think the real problem is in our "one-size-fits-all" system of laws.
The
> law ought to be more complicated, and ought to factor in more than just a
> simple formula based on NCP's income. Even if the results are the same,
at
> least the NCP can feel better about how the answer was determined (or
maybe
> not). Along the same lines, if circumstances change (on either side),
there
> ought to be a low cost method to handle changes in support. And,
alimony
> should not be sneaked in disguised as child support.
I whole-heartedly agree.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <01bd9f31$911aaba0$9610...@mikepeg.tvutel.com>,
> this thread...I am not a dead beat parent - I am a custodial parent of a
> beautiful 6 year old girl, and also have a 10 month old son with my new
> husband.
Congratulations, you must be very proud.
> Secondly, Jon...I would think twice about calling someone you don't even
> know a whore! I guess your statement about me being a whore says it all,
> you obviously don't have any respect towards women and stoop to name
> calling to better yourself! I have never talked to you so how can you
> decide what my lifestyle is like? Real mature Jon!
I'm sorry, I think you must have misunderstood me or maybe I didn't make
myself clear. I didn't specifically call you a whore. As you rightfully
pointed out, I don't know you well enough to do that.
I used the phrase "entitlement whore" to refer to a group of people who have
and enless sense of entitlement to other people's money. In that group I
include bloated corporations who slop at the taxpayer's trough (i.e.
"corporate welfare"). So-called "welfare leeches" (i.e. able-bodied people
who think that "society owes them" for some perceived slight) as well as
custodial parents (men OR women) who have made the unilateral decision to
become single parents and then expect their ex to subsidize their lifestyle
at the point of a gun.
I sincerely hope you don't fit into this category. However, if the shoe
fits...
> I don't know where many of you are posting from, but where I'm from the
> child support guidelines are very strict. They take into consideration the
> NCP's income, living expenses, insurance, etc. then make a determination
> based on that. I am not a CP who goes after the NCP for money, when I was
> receiving child support the money was put into my checking account and was
> used for a variety of things (some directly used on my daughter, some on
> the household, etc). Anyone who actually knows my family, knows that my
> daughter is not deprived of anything. I raise my daughter well, and I
> resent the statements regarding CP using the money to better themselves
> instead of the children. As a matter of fact, I went to bat for my ex
> husband when the county was trying to raise his child support to a level
> which I felt was unnecessary. We are not a rich family, but we manage to
> make ends meet.
Things are evidently different in your state. In California, they regularly
order support in excess of what the person could resonable be expected to pay
and then put the NCP in jail when they don't pay. They regularly pursue
people who are not even the fathers of the children in question. It is a
nightmare.
But back to your case, why did you feel entitled to take money from the
child's father then spend it on "the household"? Why should someone else
support you? You can resent it all you like but if you're taking money from
someone that you didn't earn, you are wrong for doing it. Even though it may
be legal, it is still wrong.
> I have remarried and my husband is a NCP who pays child support so I see
> things from both angles. We don't question his ex-wife as to where she
> spends the child support money, we know from seeing his son that he is
> taken care of and that's what really matters to us. We don't get involved
> in power struggles with ex's over money.
Don't you feel that your husband should be allowed to spend his own money on
his own child rather than having it assumed of him that he is a deadbeat and
having the money taken from him?
> My ex-husband decided to discontinue paying his support about 2 years ago
> and moved, I do not have a current address, place of employment or anything
> from him. Which is just fine by me, I am perfectly happy raising my
> daughter without any help from him.
Good for you! You should be proud of yourself. You are doing what many
people don't have the courage or decency to do - you are taking
responsibility for yourself and your child. The fact that your ex husband is
not makes him a weasel but you don't have to worry about that, do you?
You're doing fine and that is all that is important.
> The bottom line with us is that the children are taken care of, not where
> the money is spent!
I agree with you 100%. Furthermore, I think that unless the child is being
neglected or abandoned by the NCP, there's no reason at all to take money from
them. Right?
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <35906...@news.netacc.net>,
"Ken Fose" <ken...@netacc.net> wrote:
>
>
> cg...@ime.net wrote in message <6mpc8d$8ep$6...@news.harvard.net>...
> the responsibility to support their children.<
> >
> >to dictate whether they do or not or to what extent. The government
> >makes a lousy FAMILY.
>
It may or may not take a village but it sure doesn't take a government. ;->
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mp91k$97h$1...@news.jump.net>,
"Dan Daugherty" <D...@Fieldbus.org> wrote:
>
> You're probably right about this in a lot of cases. But also consider there
> may be a huge difference of opinion about what comprises "support". I was
> married to a woman who was collecting child support. Her ex made it clear
> he had no intention of paying any part of the kids' college expenses. Texas
> law does not require parents to be liable for child's college expenses, and
> NCPs are not required to pay support after child is 18 and graduated from
> high school. So in this case CP feels the parents should contribute to
> college expenses and NCP doesn't. Practically speaking that means part of
> CS has to be put aside for college expenses, and I assure you that if that
> view is taken, there is no question that the CS would at best only cover but
> about the half of the children's actual support (or less). Also, for a
> while, her ex didn't pay CS, and after lawyers and settlements, she received
> an average of only about 75% net on the actual amount assessed during the
> first 4 years after her divorce from him. Her ex made it clear he intended
> to continue giving her hassles over nonpayment, so in his case,
> over-assessing the CS by about 33% would have actually made it come out
> about right.
That's a lot of crap. You and I may agree that a college education isn't a
luxury for our kids but what right do we have to force other people to agree
with us? None at all. The Texas law is 100% correct, the government has no
right to force parents to pay for college tuition for their kids.
So, because the CP thinks that college is something the NCP should pay for,
the CP should be allowed to do an end-run around the law and force the NCP to
pay for it anyway?
And what's the extra-heavy-duty crap about "CS" not covering even half of the
child's support after deductions for college? Do the math dude... The
average support award in this country is about $600/month for 1.6 kids. If
you took a third of that and put it away... even at bank-interest you'd have
just short of $81,000 after 18 years. Now I grant you, that probably won't
buy the kid(s) an all-expenses-paid MBA from Harvard in 2016 but it'll damn
sure see them through four years at a respectable public university and
that's not even taking into account the various scholarships and grants
available. Plus, it would leave you with $400/month to support the kid which
is about three times what it actually costs to raise 1.6 kids.
> Ya know, as husband of the CP, I didn't want to see the guy get soaked for
> an unfair amount. But it sure is hard to figure out what is fair. And if
> fair could be determined, I did indeed feel he should pay it. As much as
> anything it became an issue of control. He had no say in how much was spent
> on the kids or how it was spent. There was a huge difference of opinion
> between the CP and NCP regarding what constituted proper care. The CP
> thought the NCP was irresponsible. The NCP thought the CP was wasteful in
> her spending, lavished too much money on the kids and was overprotective.
> They were sort of both right. One thing is for sure, they would never ever
> ever have agreed on what was fair. And come time for college, the NCP would
> no longer contribute to support (which is also a point many parents argue,
> whether the kids should have to pay their own way or not).
I'll tell you what's fair in the "typical" (or as close to it as you get in
the real world) situation where both parents are decent, responsible folks...
Nothing. In ordinary situations, "child-support" is an insult to responsible
parents. If the absent parent is a deadbeat (i.e. doesn't want to see the
kids, won't spend time with them, won't spend any money on them, etc...) then
let's slam the hammer down. But to do this to decent parents is an affront.
Actually, the law needs to be simpler. If you're a good parent then you pay
nothing. If you're not, you pay 15% of your gross pay.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <35902181...@geocities.com>,> --------------FD7E29BC7E3E7F8AA07DF98C
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> > In article <01bd9e38$00f8bb60$1310...@mikepeg.tvutel.com>,
> > "Mike & Peg" <mik...@tvutel.com> wrote:
> > > So what, the rent, utlities, car payments, etc. does not benefit the
child?
> >
> > They may indirectly benefit the child but they are properly the sole
> > responsibility of the CP since the CP would have these expenses whether the
> > child existed or not.
> >
> > > How is paying for the house you & the child(ren) are living in misusing
> > > the child support money? Some do misuse the money on things such as
> > > cigarettes, alcohol & drugs...however, does that mean EVERY cp does? I
> > > THINK NOT!
> >
> > If you want to call it "child-support" then it must be for the sole benefit
of
> > the children. What we call "child-support" in this country is more
accurately
> > described as "spousal support" or "alimony".
> >
>
be
> directly attributable to the children...ie: 1 BR vs. 2 BR. And in some rare
for
> transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to work)
and
> now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes, that
too is
> a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
unless the
> child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc. I'm
sure
> you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items, when
they
> would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
sometimes
> a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.
Well, you might able able to argue that but in the end, it wouldn't amount to
much because I could argue that if the CP didn't have kids they could live in
a studio apartment. Therefore, it isn't "necessary" for the CP to have a 2br
apartment - they could get by with a 1br with the kid in the bedroom and the
CP on a hide-a-bed in the living room.
There's no way that you could justify a car for the benefit of a kid. There
are WAY too many parents out there who don't have cars to claim that they are
a vital child-related necessity. I'll agree that they make life easier but
where do you draw the line between an extremely convenient luxury and an
absolute necessity. Necessities are: Food, shelter, clothing and basic
preventative medical care. Everything else is a luxury. I'm quite sure that
Child Protective Services wouldn't scramble to get involved if someone called
them to report a child living in a home without a telephone or cable TV.
Russ Evenhouse
> > Content-Type: text/plain;
> > charset="iso-8859-1"
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >
> > The govt. has the right only insofar as its power is derived from the
> > people. The govt. reflects the will of the people and to the extent we
> > want to be protected from one another, we give govt. the power to do so,
> > even if it means that power may someday be directed against any one of
> > us individually. To the extent any one of us could become a CP someday,
> > we certainly want the power of the govt. behind us to compel the NCP to
> > contribute to support of the children. If we do not want this, then
> > change the law. Whether this is a "right" or not is beside the point.
> > This is what the people want.
>
> And if the people want to make it against the for you to not brush your teeth
> before you go to bed? You have to draw the line somewhere, don't you?
>
> The point is that the entitlement whores in this country have done an
> excellent job of painting the "child-support" issue in terms which are
> favorable to them. Anyone who opposes their insensate greed is dismissed as
> someone who doesn't care about their children or is out to hurt women. That
> is the worst sort of political crap.
better be careful making statements like that! The mind police ever find
out, and you'll be up for a major thinking readjustment :)
>
> And I resent your characterization of me as a hypocrite who only opposes the
> "child-support" industry because I'm not a CP. You're wrong. I would LOVE
> to be a CP. Not only that, if I did get custody of my son, I would
> absolutely and categorically refuse to allow the government to go after my ex
> for support. The way I look at it, if someone chooses to be a CP, then they
> bloody well better be prepared to take responsibility for their choice. If
> they can't, then it isn't their choice to make. My ex chose unilaterally to
> be a "single mom". Then she unilaterally chose to make me subsidize her
> decision and then added insult to injury by forbidding me to spend a
> reasonable amount of time with my son.
>
> The saddest part of all is that there are hundreds of thousands of women out
> there just like her who are doing exactly the same thing. They are an insult
> to the parents out there who were left in a lurch by deadbeats and really do
> need to the system to go out and collect money from these cretins. People who
> collect "child-support" when they don't really need it are like people who
> call 911 when they have the flu or people who don't pull over to the side of
> the road when they hear an ambulance siren behind them.
>
> > The govt. doesn't dictate whether or not I let my kids stay up late,
> > watch TV or eat nothing but junk food. The govt. does have boundaries I
> > am not allowed to legally exceed, and this is how it should be. We have
> > freedom within certain reasonable boundaries. If you believe those
> > boundaries are not reasonable, you have every right to try to get the
> > laws changed.
>
> "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of
> Paul".
>
> The "family law" (i.e. divorce, child-support collection, etc...) is a $100
> Billion dollar a year business in this country. You have a better chance of
> socializing medicine or re-legalizing drugs in this country then you do of
> reforming a corrupt system which benefits politicians, radical feminists,
> lawyers and entitlement leeches.
>
> But, we will continue to try. ;->
>
Dan Daugherty
Excellent! You are a very good example of how different people will
interpret what is fair. You are perhaps a little further on the extreme
cheap side, but a good example never-the-less.
Regarding math (an actual case):
2 kids (not 1.6) with ten years (not 18) to go before college, and CS was
$550 (not $600) per month. But remember, she netted only 75% due to his
occasional nonpayment, so her net CS received was only about $412/month.
Texas has a special fund where they will let you buy 4 years college tuition
and fees in future amortized over time left to begin college (the equivalent
APR is close to 7%). This only covers tuition and fees. Room, board and
transportation are not paid for by this (and State of Texas estimates
tuition and fees at a state supported school represent about 25% of the cost
of going to college). OK, for two kids in 2nd grade, it costs about $240
per month to buy into this, leaving $172 per month. If CP tries to save out
future room and board, there is nothing left. Furthermore, children are
going to have to pay part of their own way. So that means that all of what
is received in CS is actually going to a portion of future college expenses
(not ALL of expenses), and CP pays for total actual support of child until
then. This is an actual case, not something I made up. And, I'd like to
point out the NCP did in fact want his kids to go to college, but he wanted
CP and her parents to pay for it. (He didn't expect the kids to pay for
it.)
You're gonna raise two kids on $166 (extrapolated from your 1.6 kids
requiring only 1/3 of $400) per month? That doesn't even cover half of day
care for after school and summer! I'm sincerely hoping (for your kids'
sake) you are not really trying to do that. Perhaps you have begun to
believe those Christian Children's Fund commercials about raising kids on 70
cents per day will work in America too? (Trying to imagine latch-key kids
huddled in the dark, sharing a daily bowl of rice, wearing the same clothes
every day and telling each other stories about their friends who have
actually been to a movie theater once or twice). Surely you meant $166 per
week!
-- Dan
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in message
<6mrdng$uc4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
then
>let's slam the hammer down. But to do this to decent parents is an
affront.
>
>> I think the real problem is in our "one-size-fits-all" system of laws.
The
>> law ought to be more complicated, and ought to factor in more than just a
>> simple formula based on NCP's income. Even if the results are the same,
at
>> least the NCP can feel better about how the answer was determined (or
maybe
>> not). Along the same lines, if circumstances change (on either side),
there
>> ought to be a low cost method to handle changes in support. And,
alimony
>> should not be sneaked in disguised as child support.
>
>Actually, the law needs to be simpler. If you're a good parent then you
pay
>nothing. If you're not, you pay 15% of your gross pay.
>
Michael and Peg Cammisuli
Jon... get a life and quit wasting everyone else's time...you don't even
listen to other people's point of view, you just assume everything is how
you believe it to be. I have more important things to focus my time and
energy on then your idoitic perceptions of reality!
jon.g...@wonderware.com
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mrtd5$21u$1...@news.jump.net>,
"Dan Daugherty" <D...@Fieldbus.org> wrote:
>
> Excellent! You are a very good example of how different people will
> interpret what is fair. You are perhaps a little further on the extreme
> cheap side, but a good example never-the-less.
Ummm, thanks... I guess... ;->
> Regarding math (an actual case):
>
> 2 kids (not 1.6) with ten years (not 18) to go before college, and CS was
> $550 (not $600) per month. But remember, she netted only 75% due to his
> occasional nonpayment, so her net CS received was only about $412/month.
> Texas has a special fund where they will let you buy 4 years college tuition
> and fees in future amortized over time left to begin college (the equivalent
> APR is close to 7%). This only covers tuition and fees. Room, board and
> transportation are not paid for by this (and State of Texas estimates
> tuition and fees at a state supported school represent about 25% of the cost
> of going to college). OK, for two kids in 2nd grade, it costs about $240
> per month to buy into this, leaving $172 per month. If CP tries to save out
> future room and board, there is nothing left. Furthermore, children are
> going to have to pay part of their own way. So that means that all of what
> is received in CS is actually going to a portion of future college expenses
> (not ALL of expenses), and CP pays for total actual support of child until
> then. This is an actual case, not something I made up. And, I'd like to
> point out the NCP did in fact want his kids to go to college, but he wanted
> CP and her parents to pay for it. (He didn't expect the kids to pay for
> it.)
OK, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. This person you mention is
awarded $550/month in support and that isn't enough to raise two kids?! What
planet do you live on? There are entire families of four or more than live on
less than that. I don't understand those deductions you mention. If the ex
doesn't pay periodically then it actually works to the CPs benefit due to the
interest and penalties that accrue. So she's actually getting more than
$550/month - just not right now. She'll get the rest later... and then some.
So she's getting $550+ per month... What's your point?
> You're gonna raise two kids on $166 (extrapolated from your 1.6 kids
> requiring only 1/3 of $400) per month? That doesn't even cover half of day
> care for after school and summer! I'm sincerely hoping (for your kids'
> sake) you are not really trying to do that. Perhaps you have begun to
> believe those Christian Children's Fund commercials about raising kids on 70
> cents per day will work in America too? (Trying to imagine latch-key kids
> huddled in the dark, sharing a daily bowl of rice, wearing the same clothes
> every day and telling each other stories about their friends who have
> actually been to a movie theater once or twice). Surely you meant $166 per
> week!
Here's a novel thought... I'd love the chance to raise my son on nothing but
what I make. You see, if my son needs something and I don't have the money to
buy it, I'll figure out a way to get it without sponging off someone else.
That's how things are supposed to work in this country, right? Or have we
become the land of endless entitlement that Alexander Tytler warned us about
when he said that "Democracy can only exist as a form of government until the
majority discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public
treasury" (or in the case of the "child-support" industry, the pockets of
private citizens).
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mrdng$uc4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
> Plus, it would leave you with $400/month to support the kid which
>is about three times what it actually costs to raise 1.6 kids.
>
Bull!
--
Pat Winstanley
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <Ef7HyiA0...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
Witty riposte there Pat...
How much do you figure it costs to raise 1.6 kids?
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <35907857...@geocities.com>,> --------------F4C3302FC6BC71AADEE32311
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
> > >If the parent had no use for
> > transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
> > work) and
> > now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
> > that too is
> > a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
> > unless the
> > child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc.
> > I'm sure
> > you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
> > when they
> > would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
> > sometimes
> > a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
> >
> > does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car rationalization
> > - there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
> > and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
> > "wants").
> >
>
> eh? However, as I said, in some rare cases, yes, the car rationalization
> fits. I never said the NCP had to pay for the car, yet if some of the CS is
> used to help with the car costs, they really shouldn't complain when they
> know it is a necessity in these cases. As far as the "incremental"
> utilities...doesn't matter. If one parent has to pay more than 50% then they
> are getting the raw deal. Incremental or not.
I guess it would depends on who's choice it was for the parents to go their
separate ways... If it was the CPs choice, they should pay 100% of what it
costs to raise the child. Why should they get a subsidy for taking it upon
themselves to become a CP?
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
Then again, it depends on the reason for the choice. My choice to leave my ex was
based on abuse to me and beginning abuse toward our child. Proven
abuse...BTW...not just my say so. Should I be punished for wanting to keep my
daughter safe?
Still, regardless of why they split...the children are still "their" children and
both are responsible for them. If no abuse is involved, they should receive JC
without CS except when additional costs are incurred...those would still need to be
split (ie: one paying the medical bills and the other not). If one opts out of
JC, then they should be financially responsible toward "their" children, not the
CP.
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> In article <Ef7HyiA0...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In article <6mrdng$uc4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
> > writes
> > > Plus, it would leave you with $400/month to support the kid which
> > >is about three times what it actually costs to raise 1.6 kids.
> > >
> >
> > Bull!
>
> Witty riposte there Pat...
>
> How much do you figure it costs to raise 1.6 kids?
>
Certainly more than $133.33...which is 1/3 of $400. And what it costs to
raise kids depends on the situation. A handicapped child costs more than a
healthy child. A child raised on one state's "high" prices costs more than
one raised on another's "low" prices. A 3 yr. old in daycare can cost more
than a 15 yr. old in high school due to daycare, diapers, formula, etc.
I'm sure Pat, as well as I, can only give figures on what it costs to raise
our kids. For instance, until age 5...my daughter cost an additional
$200/mo. daycare so that I could work. From 5 - 12, she cost $80 - $90/mo.
for an afterschool program. At age 13 (going on 21), she would like to think
she costs a pair of Nikes, rollerblades, boom box, etc. etc. :-)
Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
$ 30 formula
$ ? diapers (who can
remember that far back?) LOL
$ 25 average for
prescriptions, childrens medicines, medical care
$ 30 baby foods
$ 50 clothing
$ 20 baby necessities
(baby shampoo, desinex, etc. etc.)
(now factor in utilities
used to care for just the child, cost of crib,
stroller, etc.)
5 - 12: $80 - $90 daycare
$100 - $200 food (remember my child is 5' 5" at age 12 and
a basketball player...she
eats like it's going outta
style)
$15 medical/prescriptions (again, just a
guesstimate...these fluctuate)
$75 clothing
etc. etc. etc.
I'm sure it's all boring and I'm sure most of these costs will be disputed by
some (hell daycare has been disputed, even food was disputed by one!)
You can add to "my" mother's costs (as a single parent) for all the surgery I
underwent as a child born with heart complications. My child was rather
healthy. As I said, the costs will always depend on circumstances.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <6mquud$lgi$5...@news-1.news.gte.net>,
ccl...@xspam.gte.net wrote:
>
> On 23 Jun 1998 23:08:54 GMT, cg...@ime.net wrote:
>
> >>If the parent had no use for
> >transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
> >work) and
> >now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
> >that too is
> >a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
> >unless the
> >I'm sure
> >you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
> >when they
> >would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
> >sometimes
> >a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
> >
> >Perhaps, those INCREMENTAL costs incurred. How much hot extra hot water
> >does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car rationalization
> >- there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
> >and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
> >"wants").
> >
> >Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
>
> Ah. Now I understand. You're thinking of all this through a filter
> that says 'everybody has LITTLE kids.' No, it doesn't take a lot
> of extra money to bathe or feed a three-year-old (although that
> selfsame three-year-old *will* require daycare), but lemme tell ya,
> honey, those utility and grocery costs increase logarithmically when
> that kid hits about age 12. Every parent of teenagers I've ever
> talked to -- married, single, you-name-it -- says the same thing, "I
> can't BELIEVE how much those kids eat! And shower! Twice, three
> times a day, and they're ALWAYS washing their hair! Is there some
> government program for a shampoo subsidy? Can you get a grant to
> offset the utility costs of blow dryers and hot rollers? And let's
> not even TALK about the laundry -- those machines are running day
> and night!"
Well, I realize that hot-water may be a high-cost commodity in certain areas
but every place I've lived, my hot-water runs about $10-$15/month and and
when you factor in my son's marathon bathtimes it actually adds a couple of
bucks to the bill. He does tend to use my shampoo as bubblebath in addition
to its more conventional application and so I do spend a but more on that.
But you know what? The way I look at it is that if I didn't love my son
enough to be willing to buy a little extra shampoo for him, I wouldn't be
much of a father. I'll admit that I got off easy on the hair-styling
products. I'd be a bit worried if he got into hot rollers and he doesn't
much mind doing the old- fashioned "towel-dry" thing on his hair so I don't
have to worry about hair- dryers, so maybe I'm getting off lucky here...
> Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
> day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
> at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
> here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
> month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
> least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
> without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
> sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
> the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
> eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
> their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
> *just* for bread and milk.
You see, this is what I don't understand. Who said it was someone else's job
to help you buy food for your kids? Can't you do it on your own? If not,
why not? I'd understand if their father ran off and left you to fend for
yourself, but if he's around and willing to be a father to the kids, why not
just let him?
> Yeah, buddy, we're livin' high on the hog on that CS check here, you
> bet!
Well, if it is such a trivial thing, you could just send it back... ;-> If
it is important and necessary, the least you could do would be to admit it.
> It was really kind of funny -- the last time their dad was in town,
> he would come and get the kids in the morning and when he brought
> them back in the evening, the first thing he did every day was
> launch into a five-minute rant beginning with, "My GOD, I can't
> believe how much these kids EAT!" The third or fourth time this
> happened, I just let him run down and then smiled and said, "David,
> you don't have to convince *me*, I deal with it every day of the
> year." From the look on his face, I think it may have actually sunk
> in. Oh, not to the point that he sends more grocery money, of
> course, but at least he quit bitching about it. I guess that's
> something.
Perhaps he's just annoyed at having to pay for things twice. That does get on
my nerves. Just a thought...
Dan Daugherty
Please see responses interlaced:
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in message
<6msg6g$hif$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <6mrtd5$21u$1...@news.jump.net>,
> "Dan Daugherty" <D...@Fieldbus.org> wrote:
>>
>> Excellent! You are a very good example of how different people will
>> interpret what is fair. You are perhaps a little further on the extreme
>> cheap side, but a good example never-the-less.
>
>Ummm, thanks... I guess... ;->
>
>OK, I'm not sure what you're talking about here. This person you mention
is
>awarded $550/month in support and that isn't enough to raise two kids?!
If the entire $550 were actually collected, and add that to the CP's
contribution, it's enough to maintain them in a lifestyle similar to what
they could have expected had their parents never divorced. It seemed like a
fair amount, considering the intentions of how it was to be used. It did
not, however, include future college expenses, and even though NCP prior to
divorce intended to help kids through college, decided after divorce not to
do so and expected the CP and her parents to pay for it. The example I
drew was where she would choose to amortize a portion of the future college
expenses over the period in which CS was being received.
If two married people have kids and agree that they will have a certain
lifestyle, which includes buying cars, assisting in future college expenses,
etc., then if a divorce occurs, sometimes the NCP can change his or her mind
about how much he or she is willing to do for his or her kids now that the
divorce has occurred. If NCP decides kids should now be raised on a
subsistence level, but CP is still going along with the original presumption
of maintaining a certain lifestyle for the kids, there will indeed be a
conflict. A divorce does cause increased expenses all the way around, and
it is reasonable to expect the kids should participate in the cost cutting
as well. But to drive them down to subsistence level is unreasonable if it
is not necessary (i.e. both parents make pretty good money).
I think this is more of a control issue. I probably am willing to spend
more on my two kids than you are on your kids. But, you can be sure I do
not trust my ex to spend all the CS on my kids. I am fortunate to have it
worked out by court order that we split (not 50/50, but in proportion to
income, etc.) expenses outside normal living expenses, and I am free to
spend as much as I want on my kids without worrying about my ex taking part
of it for herself. It's not the amount of money I care about, but how much
of it my kids get. I don't want to support her, and I've managed to avoid
doing that. My ex probably went along with this court order partly because
she knew she could trust me to support my kids, including planning for
college, saving for cars, extracurricular activities and so on, and she
probably thought I had more discipline to do so than she did. When there is
a lack of trust, or lack of agreement on how money should be spent, is where
CP gets court order to require payment by NCP. (Sometimes that lack of
trust is in the court itself. I had a bit of trouble convincing the court
my ex agreed to this, or that my ex was correct to agree with this.) Don't
get me wrong, under no circumstances am I advocating alimony should be
sneaked in as part of the CS order, just that there are disagreements as to
what is a fair amount of CS.
Where this hidden alimony issue comes up is where NCP has much greater
income than does CP, and maintaining a child's predivorce lifestyle cannot
be done without incidentally boosting the lifestyle of the CP (if child gets
a color TV and cable, the CP gets to watch too, for free). I've got no good
answer for that one. Economically, the problem could be solved by awarding
custody to the parent with the much greater income. But there are other
factors in deciding which is best parent for primary custody, so the problem
remains unsolved. Perhaps a bit of hidden alimony could be tolerated in
such cases if there were provisions for including other sources of income
available to CP, including new spouse's income, inheritance, etc., which
could be used for modifying levels of child support downward when
circumstances change. Additionally, under that same idea, I see no problem
with imputing the income of the CP should he or she become intentionally
underemployed. If CP doesn't have a job, and manages to avoid daycare
expense, his or her income should be imputed, because it can be reasonably
presumed part of the CS is intended to pay part of daycare expense, not to
replace his or her entire lack of salary. I also think it is reasonable for
NCP to require CS to be spent on children, and if it can be shown it was
spent otherwise (e.g. on fine jewelery, drugs, gambling, etc.), to seek
redress through the courts. Good luck proving that unless it's really
outrageous though.
> What
>planet do you live on? There are entire families of four or more than live
on
>less than that.
The issue is what you call "living".
> I don't understand those deductions you mention. If the ex
>doesn't pay periodically then it actually works to the CPs benefit due to
the
>interest and penalties that accrue. So she's actually getting more than
>$550/month - just not right now. She'll get the rest later... and then
some.
>So she's getting $550+ per month... What's your point?
Sorry, I assumed you were following the thread. More facts: he moved out
of state, and in spite of getting a job that paid $84,000 per year instead
of the $55,000 per year he had been making before, took advantage of the
difficulty in collecting CS across state lines. He went about 18 months
without paying CS. She eventually brought him to court, and her attorney's
fees were about $3000 to do so (pretty expensive to get attorneys in two
states). Even with interest, the judge decided not to require him to pay
her attorneys' fees, but split court costs. OK that gets a judgment. But a
judgment does not equal money in hand. His lawyer advised him to offer her
about $2500 less than the judgment, and her attorney advised that additional
court costs and attorney's fees to bring him up on contempt of court
(throwing him in jail) would eventually come to that, plus the time delay,
and the possibility he might move to yet another state during the interim.
So, she got the arrearage plus one year's interest minus about $5500. If
NCP is determined not to pay and is willing to move across state lines to
avoid it, it's not as easy to collect the full amount as you might think.
It was difficult to predict the future, but in the four years since the
divorce, she had managed to net about $400+ per month. Who could say if
that average would hold in the future?
>
>> You're gonna raise two kids on $166 (extrapolated from your 1.6 kids
>> requiring only 1/3 of $400) per month? That doesn't even cover half of
day
>> care for after school and summer! I'm sincerely hoping (for your kids'
>> sake) you are not really trying to do that. Perhaps you have begun to
>> believe those Christian Children's Fund commercials about raising kids on
70
>> cents per day will work in America too? (Trying to imagine latch-key
kids
>> huddled in the dark, sharing a daily bowl of rice, wearing the same
clothes
>> every day and telling each other stories about their friends who have
>> actually been to a movie theater once or twice). Surely you meant $166
per
>> week!
>
>Here's a novel thought... I'd love the chance to raise my son on nothing
but
>what I make. You see, if my son needs something and I don't have the money
to
>buy it, I'll figure out a way to get it without sponging off someone else.
Accepting child support from an ex-spouse is not sponging. It is simply
splitting shared expenses for a shared responsibility. That should be
obvious.
>That's how things are supposed to work in this country, right? Or have we
>become the land of endless entitlement that Alexander Tytler warned us
about
>when he said that "Democracy can only exist as a form of government until
the
>majority discover that they can vote themselves largesse out of the public
>treasury" (or in the case of the "child-support" industry, the pockets of
>private citizens).
If NCPs can avoid paying a fair share of child support and manage to throw
that responsibility onto the govt. or other persons, then that indeed would
become a case of sponging off someone else.
By "child support industry", are you referring to the lawyers and private
investigators who assist CPs in collecting CS awarded by court order? Or
are you referring to those CPs who are receiving reimbursement of expenses
for a shared responsibility? I would assume the former is apropo. I just
wonder what you intended.
-- Dan
Anna Mulholland
<SNIP>
cg...@ime.net SAID
> We ae very tired of half of divorced parents being legally forced into
> Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
>
> WHO IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF THESE KIDS WHILE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT
MUST WORK TO PAY ALL THEIR BILLS, NONE OF WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
CHILDREN DIRECTLY?
DO CHILDREN NOT NEED THEIR OWNS CLOTHES/ SHOES TOYS /
BOOKS/BEDS/SHEET/DISHES - NOT TO MENTION *BEDROOMS*
MAYBE THE INCREMENTAL COST IS MINIMAL BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE CP
HAS TO DEVOTE? CHEAP BASTARDS THAT THINK THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IS JUST
GOUGING THEM OFTEN GIVE *NOTHING*
MAYBE SOME OF YOU ARE RIGHT, SINCE INCOME LEVELS DO GO INTO IT, BUT TAKE MY
WORD FOR IT, THE JUDGE IS NOT LISTENING WHEN YOU TELL THEM THE GUY IS
BURYING HIS INCOME.
Yes, I am getting a little annoyed.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <01bd9f87$c8d8e1a0$0202...@OMAX1.orbitworld.net>,
"Greg Brewer" <nospam...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>
> I thought I'd put my 2 cents in here.
>
> The problem I have with the argument is that it seems to assume that the CP
> bears the cost alone. I am the NCP and my child is with me slightly less
> than half the time. That child goes through more toilet paper in 2 days
> than I use in 2 weeks. My ex does not allow the child to bring clothes
> other than what she is wearing. So I have to buy just as many clothes,
> just as much hot water, electricity, laundery soap, bath soap, shampoo,
> food, etc as her mother.
However, I'd be willing to bet that if you had custody of the child, you'd be
willing to foot the entire bill yourself and wouldn't ask for a dime of
support from someone else.
> During the periods that the child is with me, her mother is providing 0%
> support. I have heard people justifying this by mentioning that her mother
> has on-going cost that continue even when she is gone. But, I have
> identical cost. About the only thing I can think of that her mother buys
> that I don't is school supplies. I contribute some by buying an occasional
> notebook during the school year. If I had nothing to do with my child, the
> costs to my ex-wife would almost double.
>
> Just thought I'd throw that in since it seemed to be missing.
You're not the only one who's made this point here, but don't be surprised if
few people listen or understand. You see, to the people who think every NCP
should pay over all the money they can afford; their kids are simply a means
to an entitlement - a meal-ticket. Facts and logic don't interest them
unless they can be used to support their belief that "the best interests of
the child" mean them getting as much money as possible.
> Cici in Texas <ccl...@xspamgte.net> wrote in article
> <6mquud$lgi$5...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
> > On 23 Jun 1998 23:08:54 GMT, cg...@ime.net wrote:
> >
> > >>If the parent had no use for
> > >transportation prior to having the children (rode the bus or walked to
> > >work) and
> > >now must obtain transportation for school activities, etc....then yes,
> > >that too is
> > >a consideration. And finally...utilities "directly" benefit the child,
> > >unless the
> > >child never bathes (water) or eats a hot meal (electricitiy), etc. etc.
>
> > >I'm sure
> > >you are trying to state that paying the full amounts for these items,
> > >when they
> > >would have been provided anyhow, should not occur, but keep in mind that
>
> > >sometimes
> > >a portion of these amounts "does" need to be considered.<
> > >
> > >Perhaps, those INCREMENTAL costs incurred. How much hot extra hot water
>
> > >does it take to bathe a 3-year-old? I don't buy your car
> rationalization
> > >- there are many people who cannot even drive who must get through life,
>
> > >and they manage to do so and meet their needs (as differentiated from
> > >"wants").
> > >
> > >We ae very tired of half of divorced parents being legally forced into
> > >Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
> >
> > Ah. Now I understand. You're thinking of all this through a filter
> > that says 'everybody has LITTLE kids.' No, it doesn't take a lot
> > of extra money to bathe or feed a three-year-old (although that
> > selfsame three-year-old *will* require daycare), but lemme tell ya,
> > honey, those utility and grocery costs increase logarithmically when
> > that kid hits about age 12. Every parent of teenagers I've ever
> > talked to -- married, single, you-name-it -- says the same thing, "I
> > can't BELIEVE how much those kids eat! And shower! Twice, three
> > times a day, and they're ALWAYS washing their hair! Is there some
> > government program for a shampoo subsidy? Can you get a grant to
> > offset the utility costs of blow dryers and hot rollers? And let's
> > not even TALK about the laundry -- those machines are running day
> > and night!"
> >
> > Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
> > day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
> > at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
> > here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
> > month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
> > least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
> > without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
> > sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
> > the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
> > eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
> > their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
> > *just* for bread and milk.
> >
> > Yeah, buddy, we're livin' high on the hog on that CS check here, you
> > bet!
> >
> > It was really kind of funny -- the last time their dad was in town,
> > he would come and get the kids in the morning and when he brought
> > them back in the evening, the first thing he did every day was
> > launch into a five-minute rant beginning with, "My GOD, I can't
> > believe how much these kids EAT!" The third or fourth time this
> > happened, I just let him run down and then smiled and said, "David,
> > you don't have to convince *me*, I deal with it every day of the
> > year." From the look on his face, I think it may have actually sunk
> > in. Oh, not to the point that he sends more grocery money, of
> > course, but at least he quit bitching about it. I guess that's
> > something.
> >
> >
>
Anna Mulholland
Dan said a bunch of pretty good stuff that I snipped, and concluded:
> I think the real problem is in our "one-size-fits-all" system of laws.
The
> law ought to be more complicated, and ought to factor in more than just a
> simple formula based on NCP's income. Even if the results are the same,
at
> least the NCP can feel better about how the answer was determined (or
maybe
> not). Along the same lines, if circumstances change (on either side),
there
> ought to be a low cost method to handle changes in support. And,
alimony
> should not be sneaked in disguised as child support.
At least here in Massachusetts, they base the CS on the combined CP and NCP
income (or at least what we tell the court our income is), which seems
pretty reasonable, and should address a lot of concern regarding the
"soaking" of the poor NCP in favor of the rich CP.
The rational is that a very wealthy NCP should provide an enhanced
lifestyle to the child through a larger CS payment to the CP. I don't
expect to *ever* benefit from this, and maybe it does get unfair, but there
is some logic too it. Although, the "one-size-fits-all" issue does
certainly exist, and is problematic.
jon.g...@wonderware.com
In article <3592731C...@geocities.com>,> --------------38C59874EBF561F8150BF275
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
But all of this avoids some basic issues which must be figured in. First of
all, whose choice was it for the CP to be the CP? If it was the CP's choice
then the CP has no right to demand anything from anybody (unless they were
fleeing from abuse or had some other legitimate reason to leave). They can
ask for help, but they have to be prepared to go without that help. It is
called "taking responsibility for one's actions".
On the other hand, if it was the NCPs idea then sure, the NCP should have to
pay at least half of the costs of raising the child, but those costs must be
calculated on a case-by-case basis and not simply a percentage of the NCPs
income.
The worst thing of all is that all the greedy swine who inappropriately invoke
the "CS" system are causing grief for the families who really deserve to
collect that money by using up resources which could be better used elsewhere
and also allowing the state agencies to brag about all the money they're
collecting from the responsible parents who would prefer to support their kids
directly but who will pay support in preference to going to jail. Since these
agencies can point all this money they collect in cases where they aren't
needed, they can use that as an excuse to avoid going after the hard-to-find
deadbeats.
steve lajoie
Deja Vu!
Didn't we have this same, almost exact argument, about
3 months ago? Seems around this point, I said something
and Pat flamed me (via email) pretty good, and then I
apologized because I was wrong.
Instead of posting that, I'll post this. Maybe things will
turn out differently. (Deja Vu doesn't usually include
such a strong memory of what happens NEXT...)
Greg Brewer
Anna Mulholland <amul...@ipgltd.com> wrote in article
<01bda05e$1ffebc80$9401...@mulholland.ipgltd.com>...
> <SNIP>
>
> cg...@ime.net SAID
> > We ae very tired of half of divorced parents being legally forced into
> > Santa Claus suits for the other half's benefit.
> >
> > WHO IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF THESE KIDS WHILE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT
> MUST WORK TO PAY ALL THEIR BILLS, NONE OF WHICH ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE
> CHILDREN DIRECTLY?
I elect the same person who has to take care of these kids while the
non-custodial parent must work to pay all the same bills.
> DO CHILDREN NOT NEED THEIR OWNS CLOTHES/ SHOES TOYS /
> BOOKS/BEDS/SHEET/DISHES - NOT TO MENTION *BEDROOMS*
As an NCP who must buy all of these things, I would have to say "yes they
do." So what?
> MAYBE THE INCREMENTAL COST IS MINIMAL BUT WHAT ABOUT THE TIME THAT THE CP
> HAS TO DEVOTE? CHEAP BASTARDS THAT THINK THE CUSTODIAL PARENT IS JUST
> GOUGING THEM OFTEN GIVE *NOTHING*
And poor bastards who have to pay twice get no credit.
> MAYBE SOME OF YOU ARE RIGHT, SINCE INCOME LEVELS DO GO INTO IT, BUT TAKE
MY
> WORD FOR IT, THE JUDGE IS NOT LISTENING WHEN YOU TELL THEM THE GUY IS
> BURYING HIS INCOME.
>
> Yes, I am getting a little annoyed.
The judge can only listen to facts and not allegations. That is the law.
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> Well, I realize that hot-water may be a high-cost commodity in certain areas
> but every place I've lived, my hot-water runs about $10-$15/month and and
> when you factor in my son's marathon bathtimes it actually adds a couple of
> bucks to the bill. He does tend to use my shampoo as bubblebath in addition
> to its more conventional application and so I do spend a but more on that.
> But you know what? The way I look at it is that if I didn't love my son
> enough to be willing to buy a little extra shampoo for him, I wouldn't be
> much of a father.
And that there is the gist of it all! Those that really "aren't" much of a father
and try their damdest not to be. Men have issues....denied visitation, high CS
awards, etc. But women as well have issues....runaway deadbeats, "no" CS, etc.
If a father truly cared about their child and knew the mother was having a rough
time of it, wouldn't they happily step in and provide all they could in support of
the child's costs? And if they simply flat-out refuse, then they are no father.
Yet they still have a responsibility, and simply because they "choose" not to be
responsible should not leave the mother with extra responsibility and costs. She
may care for her children, but simply may not be able to afford them....and it was
a "joint" decision to have them.
And don't take this outta context. I used father/mother simply as in my own
situation. But I do realize that there are mothers that hit the road as well,
leaving daddy to foot the bill.
> I'll admit that I got off easy on the hair-styling
> products. I'd be a bit worried if he got into hot rollers and he doesn't
> much mind doing the old- fashioned "towel-dry" thing on his hair so I don't
> have to worry about hair- dryers, so maybe I'm getting off lucky here...
>
Oh really??? Just try having a girl! Hot rollers, curling irons (3 diff. sizes),
hair dryers, mouse, shampoo, conditioner, hairbows, ...............
> > Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
> > day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
> > at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
> > here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
> > month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
> > least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
> > without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
> > sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
> > the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
> > eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
> > their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
> > *just* for bread and milk.
>
> You see, this is what I don't understand. Who said it was someone else's job
> to help you buy food for your kids? Can't you do it on your own? If not,
> why not? I'd understand if their father ran off and left you to fend for
> yourself,
And he may have done just that for all we know.
> but if he's around and willing to be a father to the kids, why not
> just let him?
>
> > Yeah, buddy, we're livin' high on the hog on that CS check here, you
> > bet!
>
> Well, if it is such a trivial thing, you could just send it back... ;-> If
> it is important and necessary, the least you could do would be to admit it.
>
Jon, it "is" important. It's important even when it doesn't come. It is many
times, "very" necessary. Yet when it is too low, or does not even come at all, it
only succeeds in reminding you that you are basically doing this "joint" job
alone.
> > It was really kind of funny -- the last time their dad was in town,
> > he would come and get the kids in the morning and when he brought
> > them back in the evening, the first thing he did every day was
> > launch into a five-minute rant beginning with, "My GOD, I can't
> > believe how much these kids EAT!" The third or fourth time this
> > happened, I just let him run down and then smiled and said, "David,
> > you don't have to convince *me*, I deal with it every day of the
> > year." From the look on his face, I think it may have actually sunk
> > in. Oh, not to the point that he sends more grocery money, of
> > course, but at least he quit bitching about it. I guess that's
> > something.
>
> Perhaps he's just annoyed at having to pay for things twice. That does get on
> my nerves. Just a thought...
>
Considering she said "the last time he was in town", it doesn't sound as if he
pays nearly as often as she...and it may be by his own choice, we just don't
know. Perhaps she could let us know if he chose to move out of town and if it's
his choice not to spend more time with his kids.
nancy g.
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
> In article <Ef7HyiA0...@pierless.demon.co.uk>,
> Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > In article <6mrdng$uc4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
> > writes
> > > Plus, it would leave you with $400/month to support the kid which
> > >is about three times what it actually costs to raise 1.6 kids.
> > >
> >
> > Bull!
>
> Witty riposte there Pat...
>
> How much do you figure it costs to raise 1.6 kids?
>
Thank you both for reminding me why I no longer read, post, or lurk in
groups like alt.child-support. I see nothing there has changed in the
past year, or is likely to change in the years to come.
Follow-ups set.
Greg Brewer
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in article
<6mu5pc$q1o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01bd9f87$c8d8e1a0$0202...@OMAX1.orbitworld.net>,
> "Greg Brewer" <nospam...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >
> > I thought I'd put my 2 cents in here.
> >
> > The problem I have with the argument is that it seems to assume that
the CP
> > bears the cost alone. I am the NCP and my child is with me slightly
less
> > than half the time. That child goes through more toilet paper in 2
days
> > than I use in 2 weeks. My ex does not allow the child to bring clothes
> > other than what she is wearing. So I have to buy just as many clothes,
> > just as much hot water, electricity, laundery soap, bath soap, shampoo,
> > food, etc as her mother.
>
> However, I'd be willing to bet that if you had custody of the child,
you'd be
> willing to foot the entire bill yourself and wouldn't ask for a dime of
> support from someone else.
When the possibility has come up in the past, I have proposed that her
child support be set at $100/year and that she send what she can afford. I
have no problem paying child support. I actually prefer the current
arrangement. Although I have missed out on a lot of school activities and
will start missing out on all of them starting now, I get most of the
summer and control over the summer schedule. My child will spend only 3
non-consecutive weeks with her mom this summer; I have the rest. I would
hate to miss seeing her as much as her mom must under the current
circumstances.
> > During the periods that the child is with me, her mother is providing
0%
> > support. I have heard people justifying this by mentioning that her
mother
> > has on-going cost that continue even when she is gone. But, I have
> > identical cost. About the only thing I can think of that her mother
buys
> > that I don't is school supplies. I contribute some by buying an
occasional
> > notebook during the school year. If I had nothing to do with my child,
the
> > costs to my ex-wife would almost double.
> >
> > Just thought I'd throw that in since it seemed to be missing.
>
> You're not the only one who's made this point here, but don't be
surprised if
> few people listen or understand. You see, to the people who think every
NCP
> should pay over all the money they can afford; their kids are simply a
means
> to an entitlement - a meal-ticket. Facts and logic don't interest them
> unless they can be used to support their belief that "the best interests
of
> the child" mean them getting as much money as possible.
I think people who haven't experienced it don't understand it. There's a
columnist who's name I can't remember how to spell. "Ask Merilyn" is how I
think it is spelled. Someone asked her if she thought NCP's should be able
to deduct child support. Her answer was that the should not since they
could not deduct the cost of support if the child when the children live
with them. I remember disagreeing with her answer.
Char
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> But all of this avoids some basic issues which must be figured in. First of
> all, whose choice was it for the CP to be the CP? If it was the CP's choice
> then the CP has no right to demand anything from anybody (unless they were
> fleeing from abuse or had some other legitimate reason to leave). They can
> ask for help, but they have to be prepared to go without that help. It is
> called "taking responsibility for one's actions".
You know whose choice it was in my situation Jon, as I have posted the reason to
you many times, but once more for refresher....it was my choice....not because of
abuse to me, as I lived with that, but because of the abuse that began to my
daughter upon birth.
>
>
> On the other hand, if it was the NCPs idea then sure, the NCP should have to
> pay at least half of the costs of raising the child, but those costs must be
> calculated on a case-by-case basis and not simply a percentage of the NCPs
> income.
>
In my mother's case...it was a mutual decision. Neither of them could get along.
But dad never spent much time with us when we were living there and certainly
didn't go out of his way to see us when we weren't living there. Even though we
moved into an apartment 15 minutes away.
> The worst thing of all is that all the greedy swine who inappropriately invoke
> the "CS" system are causing grief for the families who really deserve to
> collect that money by using up resources which could be better used elsewhere
> and also allowing the state agencies to brag about all the money they're
> collecting from the responsible parents who would prefer to support their kids
> directly but who will pay support in preference to going to jail. Since these
> agencies can point all this money they collect in cases where they aren't
> needed, they can use that as an excuse to avoid going after the hard-to-find
> deadbeats.
>
And I agree with this. My ex and my father were true deadbeat dads. My dad is a
wonderful man...just not a good father. He never shunned us...I visit him from
time to time to this day. Yet my brother will have nothing to do with him for the
hurt he caused. My brother sent him a graduation invitation and letter as a final
gesture. Our dad returned neither a letter or a call and never paid CS nor ever
came to see us. My ex only pays CS when the courts catch up to him and only until
he is able to move to another state or go back to working under the table. He has
never bothered to visit or call his daughter. Yet both of them were never forced
to be responsible, simply because my mother and I both found it more difficult to
fight it than to simply let it drop. We should not have to fight it. It should be
a given. But the courts are too busy chasing their own tales to spend time dealing
with true deadbeats.
janelaw
The average 3br apt here is about $900/mo. If the children are
of different sexes and need their own rooms, that's $600. If
they are the same sex, then figure $375. Heat, light, gas and
water average about $210/mo. That's another $140. Food is
about $7 per child per day, or $420/mo. School supplies (paper,
pens, notebooks, binders, book bags) cost about $20 per month
per child. Toiletries, vitamins, otc medicine are about $20/mo
each (you might be surprised at how much bandaids and tylenol
cost). That's $975 to $1200/mo for the two.
I assume each child wears out one outfit per month and one pair
of shoes every three months (mine go through a lot more, but
they are hard on clothes). At a Target/Bradlees kind of store,
you may get by with about $15 for shirts and $25 for pants.
Figure $5/mo for socks and underwear, and $10/mo for shoes.
Detergent costs about .50 per load (i assume fabric softener is
a luxury). Clothes, sheets, towels, etc. come to about one
load per child per day or $15/mo per child. Which reminds me,
you absolutely have to count on at least $3/mo/child for sheets
and towels. That's $73/mo/child. This does not include sports
or winter clothing.
Okay, if my math is right, I come up with $1121 to $1346 for
two, which is $896.8 to $1076.8 per month for 1.6 children.
That is for a no-frills, food, clothing and shelter only
lifestyle. Also, I left out a million little things like carpet
cleaner and light bulbs.
Cici in Texas
In the past, I've also lived in places where the hot water wasn't
really all that much of a cost because it was heated with natural
gas, but where we live now, it's all electric. I can't recall right
off what the kilowatt-hour price is here, but I do know it's dadgum
high compared with utility districts in other parts of the state.
It's not the cost of the *water* so much as it is the cost of
heating it. And you are getting off lucky with no blow-dryers or
hot rollers -- although I agree, it would be mighty odd if your son
got into hot rollers or curling irons or other such 'styling aids.'
I do have a hint for those with girls who use curling irons -- buy a
'cordless' curling iron. They're heated with little-bitty gas
canisters that cost about five or six bucks for a package of two,
and they last a surprisingly long time. It's a heck of a lot
cheaper to operate than a regular curling iron.
I remember reading in some household-hint book that a good 'ground
rule' to remember about using electricity is that it costs roughly
four times as much to make something hot than to make something whiz
around -- which means that a toaster costs more than a blender, a
dryer costs more than a washer, a space heater costs more than a
fan, and so on.
>> Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
>> day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
>> at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
>> here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
>> month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
>> least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
>> without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
>> sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
>> the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
>> eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
>> their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
>> *just* for bread and milk.
>
>You see, this is what I don't understand. Who said it was someone else's job
>to help you buy food for your kids? Can't you do it on your own? If not,
>why not?
In the years since he's been gone, I have bought food for them on my
own much more often than not, especially during the months when the
CS check just mysteriously didn't show up. In the last year,
however, I've developed some fairly serious health problems that
have made it very difficult (and sometimes impossible) for me to
work full-time, which has had a devastating impact on my
income-earning ability, as you can imagine. I am receiving medical
care, and *seriously* looking forward to the time when I'm back in
fighting shape, coz being sick for so long *really* sucks! (And no,
sending the kids to him while I'm trying to get well isn't an
option, unfortunately -- he is living with his girlfriend and her
son in a motel room and doesn't have room for two teenagers, and
isn't interested in renting a place where he *would* have room.
Bummer, huh?)
>I'd understand if their father ran off and left you to fend for
>yourself, but if he's around and willing to be a father to the kids, why not
>just let him?
Oh, man, I would LOVE to 'just let him!' It's a bit difficult to
pull off, though, considering that he has lived all over the West
Coast since about two years before the divorce. He originally left
to look for work (he's an electrician, and scale in California is
*much* higher than it is in Texas). Plan A was for him to work
about eight months in California, come home for the rest of the
year, and then repeat as necessary. Of course I didn't mind him
looking for work -- what I *did* mind is the fact that he not only
found work, he found a girlfriend, too, which led to his
announcement that he wasn't planning on coming home for the
foreseeable future. His plans were to travel the country with her,
finding work where they could, and I was supposed to stay back home
in Texas and raise the kids. I tried it his way for a long time,
hoping that he would change his mind, but it didn't happen. Oddly
enough, I wasn't all that wild about having a husband I never saw
and seldom even got to talk to because he was living with another
woman over 1,600 miles away -- I know, I'm just strange that way.
He does pay $300 a month in child support for our two kids -- well,
not always, but he does usually pay it. I've offered many times to
waive the CS completely if he would just come back to Texas and help
raise our kids, but he doesn't seem to feel that that's enough
incentive to give up his chosen lifestyle. Oh, well, he's a big
boy, it's not as though I can force him -- but it does mean that
he's pretty much out of touch with what is really involved in
day-to-day life with teenagers. Considering the fact that he sees
them for about 6-7 days once a year or less (and once allowed a
little over three years to go by without seeing them at *all*),
that's not really too surprising, I suppose. Every time he sees
them, he seems surprised not to find the 5-year-old and 8-year-old
he originally left behind. I guess there really is some substance
to the old saying, 'out of sight, out of mind.' I really hate it
that sticking around to see his kids grow up wasn't enough of a
priority to at least keep him in the area, but there was precious
little I could do about it, you know?
>> Yeah, buddy, we're livin' high on the hog on that CS check here, you
>> bet!
>Well, if it is such a trivial thing, you could just send it back... ;-> If
>it is important and necessary, the least you could do would be to admit it.
I was being a smartypants, that's all. We *have* done without it
more times than I care to think about it during the months that it
just didn't come, so even though it's not exactly a fortune, we
really appreciate it when it does come! And it isn't as though
sending the CS impoverishes him, since it's less than 8% of his net
income. I'm really not out to bleed the man dry, just trying to get
these kids raised in a home where they don't have to wonder where
their next meal is coming from.
>> It was really kind of funny -- the last time their dad was in town,
>> he would come and get the kids in the morning and when he brought
>> them back in the evening, the first thing he did every day was
>> launch into a five-minute rant beginning with, "My GOD, I can't
>> believe how much these kids EAT!" The third or fourth time this
>> happened, I just let him run down and then smiled and said, "David,
>> you don't have to convince *me*, I deal with it every day of the
>> year." From the look on his face, I think it may have actually sunk
>> in. Oh, not to the point that he sends more grocery money, of
>> course, but at least he quit bitching about it. I guess that's
>> something.
>Perhaps he's just annoyed at having to pay for things twice. That does get on
>my nerves. Just a thought...
Well, considering that our divorce decree states that he doesn't pay
any CS during any month that he has the kids for a week or longer,
he *doesn't* pay for things twice when he has the kids. That has
always seemed screwy to me, which is why we had it put in the
decree.
Hope that clarifies things just a bit.
janelaw
Oops. I forgot child care. For preschool and summer you need
to add at least $100 per week per child. That is an additional
$693 per month for 1.6 children. Of course, school age children
only need after school programs and babysitters when they are
sick. So it's probably on half as much.
fritzmartens
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
>
>
> But all of this avoids some basic issues which must be figured in. First of
> all, whose choice was it for the CP to be the CP? If it was the CP's choice
> then the CP has no right to demand anything from anybody (unless they were
> fleeing from abuse or had some other legitimate reason to leave). They can
> ask for help, but they have to be prepared to go without that help. It is
> called "taking responsibility for one's actions".
>
> On the other hand, if it was the NCPs idea then sure, the NCP should have to
> pay at least half of the costs of raising the child, but those costs must be
> calculated on a case-by-case basis and not simply a percentage of the NCPs
> income.
>
> The worst thing of all is that all the greedy swine who inappropriately invoke
> the "CS" system are causing grief for the families who really deserve to
> collect that money by using up resources which could be better used elsewhere
> and also allowing the state agencies to brag about all the money they're
> collecting from the responsible parents who would prefer to support their kids
> directly but who will pay support in preference to going to jail. Since these
> agencies can point all this money they collect in cases where they aren't
> needed, they can use that as an excuse to avoid going after the hard-to-find
> deadbeats.
>
>
I wonder how much of the rise in bankruptcies has to do with the implementaion of
the CS system... when my ex took off, had I been forcd to pay what the "system"
said I should pay, ( it was well more than what we were spending directly on the
three of us) plus be responsible for all the accumulated debts, I would have had to
go the bankruptcy route myself.
janelaw
Char wrote:
>
>
> Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
>
Wow! That's half what I paid, and I thought I got a good deal.
Does this vary much regionally?
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mtot2$73f$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
>I guess it would depends on who's choice it was for the parents to go their
>separate ways... If it was the CPs choice, they should pay 100% of what it
>costs to raise the child. Why should they get a subsidy for taking it upon
>themselves to become a CP?
So, if the NCP was primarily the antagonist who caused the split they
should pay 100% of the child's costs to the CP?
Are you *sure* you want to go in that direction?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mu5pc$q1o$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
>In article <01bd9f87$c8d8e1a0$0202...@OMAX1.orbitworld.net>,
> "Greg Brewer" <nospam...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
>>
>> I thought I'd put my 2 cents in here.
>>
>> The problem I have with the argument is that it seems to assume that the CP
>> bears the cost alone. I am the NCP and my child is with me slightly less
>> than half the time. That child goes through more toilet paper in 2 days
>> than I use in 2 weeks. My ex does not allow the child to bring clothes
>> other than what she is wearing. So I have to buy just as many clothes,
>> just as much hot water, electricity, laundery soap, bath soap, shampoo,
>> food, etc as her mother.
>
>However, I'd be willing to bet that if you had custody of the child, you'd be
>willing to foot the entire bill yourself and wouldn't ask for a dime of
>support from someone else.
Why should he NOT expect the child's mother to contribute towards the
costs of raising the child?
>
>> During the periods that the child is with me, her mother is providing 0%
>> support. I have heard people justifying this by mentioning that her mother
>> has on-going cost that continue even when she is gone. But, I have
>> identical cost. About the only thing I can think of that her mother buys
>> that I don't is school supplies. I contribute some by buying an occasional
>> notebook during the school year. If I had nothing to do with my child, the
>> costs to my ex-wife would almost double.
>>
>> Just thought I'd throw that in since it seemed to be missing.
>
>You're not the only one who's made this point here, but don't be surprised if
>few people listen or understand. You see, to the people who think every NCP
>should pay over all the money they can afford; their kids are simply a means
>to an entitlement - a meal-ticket. Facts and logic don't interest them
>unless they can be used to support their belief that "the best interests of
>the child" mean them getting as much money as possible.
>
Jon... wake up! Most people here see it as the responsibility of BOTH
parents to provide for the child!
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mu1lk$ldj$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
If I've worked out the attributions correctly Cici said:
>> Just as one example, our household goes through a gallon of milk per
>> day. My SO drinks *one* glass of milk a day, and I don't drink it
>> at all, coz I'm allergic to milk. Now, a gallon of milk costs $2.49
>> here, so that comes out to $74.70 a month (assuming 30 days in a
>> month) just for MILK for my two teenagers. They also go through at
>> least one loaf of bread a day, which uses up another $23.70 a month
>> without even considering the peanut butter, butter, margarine,
>> sandwich meat, mustard, mayonnaise or whatever that is consumed with
>> the bread. And bear in mind that most of the bread-plus-whatever is
>> eaten for *snacks*. This has very little to do with the cost of
>> their actual *meals*. So there goes 1/3 of my monthly CS check
>> *just* for bread and milk.
>
And Jon said:
>You see, this is what I don't understand. Who said it was someone else's job
>to help you buy food for your kids? Can't you do it on your own? If not,
>why not? I'd understand if their father ran off and left you to fend for
>yourself, but if he's around and willing to be a father to the kids, why not
>just let him?
And if the attributions are correct, Cici's ex husband *did* run off and
leave the kids to fend for themselves (or for Cici to support them fully
rather than jointly!
Incidentally, Jon, why do you have a problem with both parents
contributing towards the cost of a child's needs?
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
In article <6mu7c1$tbv$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jon.g...@wonderware.com
writes
Re: how much it costs for a child's basic necessities...
>But all of this avoids some basic issues which must be figured in. First of
>all, whose choice was it for the CP to be the CP? If it was the CP's choice
>then the CP has no right to demand anything from anybody (unless they were
>fleeing from abuse or had some other legitimate reason to leave). They can
>ask for help, but they have to be prepared to go without that help. It is
>called "taking responsibility for one's actions".
Exactly what as to which parent caused the divorce changes the costs of
the child's upkeep?
Exactly why, whatever the cause of the divorce, is a parent NOT obliged
to share the cost of raising the child with the other parent?
--
Pat Winstanley
Kenneth S.
I think it's a mistake for fathers to object to the term
"deadbeat dad," or to endorse the use of the term "noncustodial
parent" instead of father. In my view, nothing should be done to
obscure the grotesque bias of the present "child support" system. Most
of this system's features can be explained by the fact that, in the
overwhelming majority of cases, fathers pay "child support" and
mothers receive it. One or two freak situations where fathers are
custodial parents shouldn't be allowed to divert attention from the
fundamental reality.
Apologists for the present system (notably CS bureaucrats)
love to refer to "noncustodial parents," instead of "fathers," when
they talk about the oppressive enforcement measures now used. These
people know that that their interests are served by diverting
attention from the fact that their activities are directed solely at
fathers. So they pretend that the system is sex-neutral. For the same
reason, these people like to say that "child support is owed to the
children," despite the fact that this is a lie, since child support is
owed to the mother.
Let's not waste energy objecting to the phrase "deadbeat
dads." Instead, let's focus on the bias of this system. Let's stress
that child support is gender extortion.
As to the last point below, there was an attempt a while back
to label mothers who deny access "malicious moms," but I'm not sure if
it ever caught on. The fact that there's no money involved is only one
reason why access isn't enforced. Another, and probably more
important, another reason is that any vistitation enforcement action
would be targeted at mothers, and the beneficiaries would be fathers
(and children). The latter factor is a very significant explanation
of why there's no political steam behind visitation enforcement.
On Fri, 19 Jun 1998 19:46:11 GMT, one.of....@fathers.com wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Jun 1998 01:15:00 -0400, "nancy g." <nan...@tiac.net> ,
>claiming to be nancy g. wrote:
>>Try being a custodial father who hasn't received a penny of the thousands
>>of dollars in support due to him from his ex -- or just be in the position
>>of knowing and caring about a father in a situation like that -- and you'll
>>become aware of how stereotypical phrases like "deadbeat dads" can hurt,
>>because they lead to a (sometimes subconscious) association of the word "dad"
>>with the word "deadbeat." In the case of a custodial dad working full time
>>to support his kids and doing 100 percent of the at-home child care, NOTHING
>>could be further from the truth than the image that phrase conjures up.
>>Call them "deadbeat parents" if you want. Or call them scofflaws, or criminals,
>>or lawbreakers, or felons. But please -- don't call them all "dads."
>
>The other thing to consider in all of this, (which I'm sure has been
>covered in this NG ad nauseum), is the inequity regarding the term
>'deadbeat' and how it gets applied and more importnantly, enforced:
>
>As a non-primary custodial parent, who pays some financial support, if
>I were to stop making those payments, I'm labeled a "deadbeat Dad",
>haraased by the sheriff's department, taken to court and basicly made
>miserable - all on the taxpayer's dime.
>
>OTOH, if my ex- should violate our agreement in any way, such as in
>the amount of visitation permitted, my only recourse is to reopen our
>divorce proceedings and sue her for specific performance of our
>agreement, (all at my expense).
>
>I once called the county sheriff and tried to report my ex- as a
>"deadbeat Mom" due to the many (well documented) violations of our
>custody agreement, but once they determined there wasn't any money
>involved, they closed the case and advised me to seek out a private
>attorney.
>
>I guess what this diatribe is leading up to is that before we apply
>the term 'deadbeat' to either parent, we ought to make sure it covers
>all the bases. (Yeah, like that'll ever happen.)
>
fritzmartens
janelaw wrote:
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > How much do you figure it costs to raise 1.6 kids?
> >
>
> The average 3br apt here is about $900/mo. If the children are
> of different sexes and need their own rooms, that's $600.
Wrong! Same old bullshit matth. What is the cost of a single bedroom
apartment? $750.?You would have that cost regarless. So the
additional cost is only $150
> If
> they are the same sex, then figure $375. Heat, light, gas and
> water average about $210/mo.
Most of which you would have regardless. Figure $60 for the kids.
> That's another $140. Food is
> about $7 per child per day, or $420/mo.
This is way to high....I do the grocery shopping. Feed four people per
month oin that.I'll be generous and figure $250.
> School supplies (paper,
> pens, notebooks, binders, book bags) cost about $20 per month
> per child.
Get real. Maybe 40 per year per child......I send mine to a private
school, you ahver to pay extra for everything.
> Toiletries, vitamins, otc medicine are about $20/mo
> each (you might be surprised at how much bandaids and tylenol
> cost).
Unless they are special needs, I don;t believe this either. Figure
$20.00 totla for misc
> That's $975 to $1200/mo for the two.
> I assume each child wears out one outfit per month and one pair
> of shoes every three months (mine go through a lot more, but
> they are hard on clothes). At a Target/Bradlees kind of store,
> you may get by with about $15 for shirts and $25 for pants.
> Figure $5/mo for socks and underwear, and $10/mo for shoes.
> Detergent costs about .50 per load (i assume fabric softener is
> a luxury). Clothes, sheets, towels, etc. come to about one
> load per child per day or $15/mo per child.
Get real. how about two loads a week per child.
> Which reminds me,
> you absolutely have to count on at least $3/mo/child for sheets
> and towels. That's $73/mo/child. This does not include sports
> or winter clothing.
>
> Okay, if my math is right, I come up with $1121 to $1346 for
$16,000 a year for two kids????? Not likely.
> two, which is $896.8 to $1076.8 per month for 1.6 children.
> That is for a no-frills, food, clothing and shelter only
> lifestyle. Also, I left out a million little things like carpet
> cleaner and light bulbs.
More realistically would be 500.00 per child which is 800.00 for 1.6Also
you are responsible for half the cost. BTW lights bulbs and the million
little things are expenses, generally that you would have regardless of
having the kids or not.
The feds pay foster care at what? 300-400 a month. BTW foster
families do that for profit.
What you are looking for is back door alimony.
Stephanie
In article <35939EC7...@geocities.com>>--------------ACC2295BA4A7EE2C1C832D6B
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>
>
been told that the going rate in CA is much higher than that.
Stephanie
lilbl...@my-dejanews.com
In article <6mv52n$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> Wow! That's half what I paid, and I thought I got a good deal.
> Does this vary much regionally?
For YWCA daycare in Vancouver, BC, it's a little over $800 CDN till age 3.
lil
Leslie
janelaw wrote:
>
> Char wrote:
> >
> >
> > Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
> >
>
> Does this vary much regionally?
I'm in Canada. When my kids were in daycare, I paid $25/day for each of them.
Leslie
steve lajoie
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article <6muk07$3...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote:
[snip]
> Okay, if my math is right, I come up with $1121 to $1346 for
> two, which is $896.8 to $1076.8 per month for 1.6 children.
[snip]
$13,452 to $16,152 per year, just for 2 kids? You're number
is not grossly inflated, but you do have to remember that
the well is NOT, repeat NOT, bottomless. It's comes
out of some poor Joe's pocket, some poor Joe who's only
problem is that he made babies with some Jane. Now,
for whatever reason, they had to establish TWO separate
households. Two people who barely get by under one household
now have to establish two with the same number of dollars.
What makes it ironic is that most divorces are over money.
Average income in the US is about $22,000. Single dad
gets $4000 standard deduction and $2550 personal exemption,
for a taxable income of 15,450 and a tax of $2,316.
Mr. Average dad then has $19,684 in after tax money.
You want to leave him with $6232 to $3532 per year
to live on. Why not just chain the stupid bastard
up and send him to the salt mines. It's his own
fault for trying to have a family, and his genitals
prove that he's a criminal anyway.
Yeah, mom could work. My wife worked. I figured
after taxes, extra expenses and day care, she
made about 25cents an hour. Daycare makes it hardly
worth working if mom's not bringing home the big
bucks.
Or we could back the truck up, and figure that dad
shouldn't have to go homeless so that Timmy can have
his very own room to himself. That dad shouldn't have
to wear rags, so that little Timmy can have all new
clothes bought at the latest department store every
three months. Rather than sending dad to the soup
kitchen, howbout Timmy eat mac and cheese once
in awhile. (My kids love mac and cheese...) You
know the idea, basic morality 101. (Did you know
that I took Principles of Morality 101 and got an
A in it? :-)
Marriage is a good idea. I can see how it would be
difficult for a single person to raise a kid. That's
why we have marriage in the first place. Divorce
sucks, but sometimes it has to happen. I don't think
that anyone can expect to escape the effects of divorce,
even the kids who are innocent in the whole thing.
steve lajoie
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article <6mume6$e...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> Oops. I forgot child care. For preschool and summer you need
> to add at least $100 per week per child. That is an additional
> $693 per month for 1.6 children. Of course, school age children
> only need after school programs and babysitters when they are
> sick. So it's probably on half as much.
Still, you've just turned the average $22,000 a year
father into a homeless deadbeat dad who eats out of
soup kitchens. Every dime he makes, after taxes, goes
to mom, UNLESS mom makes so much money as to lower
his obligation.
I find your views of children's needs to reflect a
somewhat spoiled background. Poverty is a bitch.
Been there and done that, got the T-shirt.
Char
Stephanie wrote:
> In article <35939EC7...@geocities.com>
> Char <almost...@geocities.com> writes:
>
> >janelaw wrote:
> >
> >> Char wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
> >> >
> >>
> >> Wow! That's half what I paid, and I thought I got a good deal.
> >> Does this vary much regionally?
> >
> >That was the going rate for daycare in WV in the mid to late
> >80's. Been a while. :-)
> >Actually until age 2, it was $65/week. Age 2 - 5 was $50/wk.
> >Considering newborns required closer watching.
> >
> >
> I pay $86/week in KY for my 6 yo as well as for my 4 yo. I've
> been told that the going rate in CA is much higher than that.
>
> Stephanie
Sorry, blonde hair getting in the way of my cranial functions once
again. Are you saying $86 "per" child or $86 total? If it's $86
total....THAT'S CHEAP! LOL
Curious "blonde" minds wanna know. :-)
Char
Leslie wrote:
> janelaw wrote:
> >
> > Char wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
> > >
> >
> > Wow! That's half what I paid, and I thought I got a good deal.
> > Does this vary much regionally?
>
> I'm in Canada. When my kids were in daycare, I paid $25/day for each of them.
>
>
> Leslie
HOLY SMOLEY! That's over $1,000/month! Glad I'm not in Canada. You can keep
it! LOL
Pat Winstanley
In article <3593A345...@voyager.net>, fritzmartens
<fritzm...@voyager.net> writes
>> Detergent costs about .50 per load (i assume fabric softener is
>> a luxury). Clothes, sheets, towels, etc. come to about one
>> load per child per day or $15/mo per child.
>
>Get real. how about two loads a week per child.
You have evidently never had a bedwetter living with you...
--
Pat Winstanley
Char
Kelvin Fedrick wrote:
> In article <01bda071$d057b740$0202...@OMAX1.orbitworld.net>,
> Greg Brewer <nospam...@hal-pc.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> DO CHILDREN NOT NEED THEIR OWNS CLOTHES/ SHOES TOYS /
> >> BOOKS/BEDS/SHEET/DISHES - NOT TO MENTION *BEDROOMS*
> >
> >As an NCP who must buy all of these things, I would have to say "yes they
> >do." So what?
>
> Actually, I take exception with the notion that a child needs his/her own
> room. I didn't have a room to myself until I was 12 or 13, and only then
> because my older brother moved out.
>
Please note that some states "require" children, and especially children of
opposite sexes, to have their own room after a certain age.
Anna Mulholland
janelaw <jan...@excite.com> wrote in article
<6mv52n$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> Char wrote:
> >
> >
> > Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
> >
>
> Wow! That's half what I paid, and I thought I got a good deal.
> Does this vary much regionally?
>
It is 1/4 of what I pay currently, 1/5 of what I paid up until 2 y 9 m.
boston area, going rates.
Anna Mulholland
Pat Winstanley <pee...@NOSPAMpierless.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<KZYkDWB7...@pierless.demon.co.uk>...
Isn't the point that the kids deserve to be supported, somewhere along the
line, and all this intense figure pointing and blaming fundamentally
unhealthy?? Jon, get over it.
>
Anna Mulholland
jon.g...@wonderware.com wrote in article
SNIP >
>to the people who think every NCP
> should pay over all the money they can afford; their kids are simply a
means
> to an entitlement - a meal-ticket. Facts and logic don't interest them
> unless they can be used to support their belief that "the best interests
of
> the child" mean them getting as much money as possible.
How about a little? Some? Honestly, you are unbelievably simplistic. The
"deadbeat dad" forces his money under the table, expressly to pay as little
as he possibly can and yet still has some interest in his child. As a CP
who wants to encourage a relationship with the NCP, i don't want to
interfere, but a little financial assistance would be nice. Since he has
expressly told me that he will take all possible steps to avoid paying
anything (and continues to simply not pay despite the court order) what
would you suggest?
And since I can in fact make it without any contribution, that is what I
should do? Should I retaliate in any way, interfering with visitation? Is
the fact that I can get by excuse for $0000 contribution? Where is your
level of understanding for those (many) of us who do not receive CS, and
what compassionate and useful advice would you have???
Are things so black and white where you are?
Char
steve lajoie wrote:
> $13,452 to $16,152 per year, just for 2 kids? You're number
> is not grossly inflated, but you do have to remember that
> the well is NOT, repeat NOT, bottomless.
I tend to disagree with this. I survived off of less for an adult and one child. I think
this is a high figure. As for the rest of what you've said....I agree wholeheartedly!
Well worded...every bit of it! :-)
130163100-ValentineC(DR2667)n22
>>> > Til age 5, (monthly guesstimate): $200 daycare
Here in CO, it's 100 - 125 per week per kid...more for newborns.
Lynne Scholl
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Oh gosh, isn't that the truth! At least I have a waterproof sheet
(ummm....on reading that over, I decided to add the disclaimer "on my
daughter's bed" as it sounded like I was talking about myself!*grin)
and don't have to scrub and air out the mattress every time anymore.
--
lynne
Anna Mulholland
Anna Mulholland <amul...@ipgltd.com> wrote in article
<01bda127$a6994160$9401...@mulholland.ipgltd.com>...
> line, and all this intense figure (*I meant finger*) pointing and blaming
Lynne Scholl
Anna Mulholland wrote:
> Isn't the point that the kids deserve to be supported, somewhere along the
> line, and all this intense figure pointing and blaming fundamentally
> unhealthy?? Jon, get over it.
> >
*clap, clap, clap* Much applause to you, well put!
--
lynne
Leslie
*clap, clap, clap* from me too!!!
Leslie