Questions about taxes
Didi
but I figured that this is probably a pretty common problem, so I thought that
I would ask you guys.
In original divorce decree, it clearly states that DH gets to claim SD for
Federal tax purposes. In Feb. 1999, DH and BM went to Friend of the Court
(The state of MI's mediation services) to discuss visitation, custody, and
child support issues. Never was it discussed that the Federal tax exemption
would change -- never. However, apparently when the child support was
calculated, the mediator assumed that BM got the tax deduction (didn't ask
either) and simply wrote that in her notations. So, now we are trying to
organize our taxes for 1999, and we find out that BM has claimed SD on her
taxes..... Grrrr..... She claimed that she saw that calculation on the papers
and asked her attorney who told her to go for it. She didn't clarify it,
however, with the Friend of the Court, and when we did today, we were told that
unless it was specifically written as a change, the original decree holds true.
What do we do now? DH basically thinks that BM would be the one held
responsible if audited, but I'm not sure that that is the case. He has a more
laissez-faire attitude while I like to make sure that things are legal and
above-board.
Didi
"A dead thing can go with a stream, only a living thing can go against it."
G.K. Chesterton
Brenita Turner
the right to take the deduction, then they'll go for her. Sometimes,
however, they will catch it befor eyour taxes are processed and refuse you
the deduction unless you prove it. Other times, the deduction being taken
twice will never be noticed. But you are OK in trying to take it since you
have the documentation.
Brenita
"Didi " <didi...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000313170104...@ng-bh1.aol.com...
cheri
decree that gives you the exemption to your 1040. I'm an
accountant and the clients I have that do this don't have any
problem. It answers any question the IRS may have before they
even have it.
Cheri
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Alan Moore
>O.k., I have a question for you guys -- DH is trying to contact his attorney,
>but I figured that this is probably a pretty common problem, so I thought that
>I would ask you guys.
>
>In original divorce decree, it clearly states that DH gets to claim SD for
>Federal tax purposes. In Feb. 1999, DH and BM went to Friend of the Court
>(The state of MI's mediation services) to discuss visitation, custody, and
>child support issues. Never was it discussed that the Federal tax exemption
>would change -- never. However, apparently when the child support was
>calculated, the mediator assumed that BM got the tax deduction (didn't ask
>either) and simply wrote that in her notations. So, now we are trying to
>organize our taxes for 1999, and we find out that BM has claimed SD on her
>taxes..... Grrrr..... She claimed that she saw that calculation on the papers
>and asked her attorney who told her to go for it. She didn't clarify it,
>however, with the Friend of the Court, and when we did today, we were told that
>unless it was specifically written as a change, the original decree holds true.
> What do we do now? DH basically thinks that BM would be the one held
>responsible if audited, but I'm not sure that that is the case. He has a more
>laissez-faire attitude while I like to make sure that things are legal and
>above-board.
>
>Didi
Hmm. It's not quite clear. Is there a new custody
agreement/stipulation/order that says she should get the deduction?
If not, your decree is the operative instruction on the issue. You
can include a copy with your return, and point the problem out to the
IRS.
OTOH, you would be well advised to try and negotiate this with his ex
_first_, because she is going to have to file an amended return, and
may, if she's delinquent about it, get hit with some penalties, etc.
My usual advice is to limit or prevent any conflict you can. You may
find yourself in a position where you get the deduction but pay far
more heavily in other ways, or later on. Maybe you can get her to
agree to re-negotiate and refund to you some part of her tax refund
based on subsequent negotiations.
Al Moore
bree
> In original divorce decree, it clearly states that DH gets to
> claim SD for Federal tax purposes. In Feb. 1999, DH and
> BM went to Friend of the Court (The state of MI's mediation
> services) to discuss visitation, custody, and child support
> issues. Never was it discussed that the Federal tax
> exemption would change -- never. However, apparently
> when the child support was calculated, the mediator
> assumed that BM got the tax deduction (didn't ask either)
If tax exemption was calculated by amount DH pays, it
sounds as though DH is receiving the exemption by way
of a lowered CS payment. Check with your lawyer on
this.
> and simply wrote that in her notations. So, now we are
> trying to organize our taxes for 1999, and we find out that
> BM has claimed SD on her taxes..... Grrrr..... She claimed
> that she saw that calculation on the papers and asked her
> attorney who told her to go for it. She didn't clarify it,
> however, with the Friend of the Court, and when we did
> today, we were told that unless it was specifically written
> as a change, the original decree holds true. What do we
> do now? DH basically thinks that BM would be the one
> held responsible if audited, but I'm not sure that that is the
> case.
According to IRS law (it matters not what a court order
states; tax exemptions are used by lawyers as bargaining
tools *knowing* that IRS law supercedes it), the person that
houses a child more than 50% of the year "and/or" provides
greater than 50% of *total* support (includes visitation
expenses, medical care/insurance, recreational activities,
etc) is entitled to claim the child for dependant exemption.
Most divorced couples aren't aware of this, and those who
do know keep it to themselves.
If you and your DH have custody "or" if you provide more
than 50% of SD's total support then you are entitled to
the exemption. Attach proof to your tax return and the IRS
will handle it from this point. Proof is relevant section as
to custody or statement of total expenses incurred by DH
on SD's behalf. Since BM has already claimed the
exemption you will not be able to E-File this year.
Faith
tax preparer of 18 years, bookkeeper, and future
accountant if I can survive 3 more years of college)
Anne Robotti
both tax returns, ours is the one that shows we can claim her. What BM does
on our legal years to claim her is out of our control. What we do on hers is
what we're supposed to do, don't claim SD and don't try to.
Anne
bree
cheri wrote
> I would suggest attaching a copy of the part of the divorce
> decree that gives you the exemption to your 1040. I'm an
> accountant and the clients I have that do this don't have any
> problem. It answers any question the IRS may have before
> they even have it.
I do the same for my clients, though I make NCP's aware
of IRS law superceding court orders (and suggest they
not repeat what they know to the CP). I feel it's my job
to make them aware of their rights just in case the CP
does decide to claim the exemptions against court order.
Two of my clients (NCP's) had court ordered exemption
rights, CP took exemption anyway. IRS sided with CP.
One NCP was able to get CS reduction (very small amount)
to compensate.
Faith
Sarai
with you guys only every other weekend? I would think her mother would
claim her, seeing that she is the one primarily raising her. Although I can
understand Anne's situation with the alternating years thing, that to me
sounds fair, because even though they are ncp, Anne's sd spends alot of time
at their house. I dunno, I'm just curious. :D
Heather
"bree" <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:S4ez4.9068$FX.3...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
Miles R. Fidelman
Didi (didi...@aol.comnospam) wrote:
: calculated, the mediator assumed that BM got the tax deduction (didn't ask
: either) and simply wrote that in her notations. So, now we are trying to
: organize our taxes for 1999, and we find out that BM has claimed SD on her
this could be a double-edged sword: if the tax deduction was factored into
the child support calculation, then BM might argue that if she doesn't
take the tax deduction, then she should get additional child support
Miles
Didi
>Just a question, Didi why do you and your husband claim her if she lives with
you guys only every other weekend?
This is our first year married, so it is our first year filing taxes
together..... Initially, I guess that my DH had that stipulated in the divorce
decree considering the large amount of CS that he was giving her, voluntarily
(he was paying her more than the state requirement at BM's request). Now, she
is with us 2 w/e's a month, a week at Christmas, and 3 months during the
summer. During the 3 months of the summer, CS is decreased by half.
>I would think her mother would claim her, seeing that she is the one primarily
raising her.
You see, I am going to "suggest" to him that they formally discuss this with
Friend of the Court again, because he is still paying a large amount of CS
(more than my ex pays for 3 children!), as well as paying additionally for
child care and for all medical expenses.... Plus, she made certain that it is
in the paperwork that DH is responsible for all college expenses. BM makes
certain that if there is a cause to make him pay $$, she does....
In my situation, we (my ex and I) each get 1 exemption every year and float the
3rd child every other year. We also split responsibility for medical expenses
and are expected to split the responsibility for college expenses.
If that were the case with DH and BM, I could certainly see their alternating
years as well!
Thanks for the question -- this makes an interesting discussion!
Tracey
>with you guys only every other weekend?
We're in the same position. DH has received all three tax deductions for
his kids since the divorce (all three until his oldest turned 21, now it's
down to two.) Since taxes are solely about money, it seems to make
sense in our situation since the amount of CS my husband paid was
an amount that was well able to provide their *entire* essential finan-
cial support that he get the deduction. IMO, the amount of time spent
at the house is not the deciding factor as far as who gets/should get
the deduction.
--
Tracey
-----
"All a parent, *any* parent, can do is give
it their best shot, right or wrong. The
actual outcome rests on so many variables,
no single person can assume responsibility,
blame or praise for whatever happens....
We've got to remember not to try to shoulder
the blame for what other people do...."
--Aahz--
bree
Tracey wrote
> Since taxes are solely about money, it seems to make
> sense in our situation since the amount of CS my husband
> paid was an amount that was well able to provide their
> *entire* essential finan-cial support that he get the
> deduction. IMO, the amount of time spent at the house is
> not the deciding factor as far as who gets/should get
> the deduction.
It's one of the two deciding factors. The other qualifyer is
total support. The law stipulates and/or so either qualifyier
would grant eligibility.
Faith
Anne Robotti
Tracey wrote:
>
> IMO, the amount of time spent
> at the house is not the deciding factor as far as who gets/should get
> the deduction.
>
Tracey, I agree with you 100%, as you know. Unfortunately, our opinion
doesn't always jive with the IRS's opinion. All this time, we thought
that if we got audited when we claimed SD on the same year as BM we'd
be in the clear. A call to our accountant last night revealed the opposite.
He said that if it came down to it, we'd probably lose. That's the reason
he asked us at our first meeting whether BM was likely to claim SD on the same
year. We said no, because she never has. If she did, she'd get the deduction
*and* our child support.
What a lovely country to be a dad in. Of course, in case anybody wants to hear
it again, she is voluntarily not working, we're providing almost everything for
SD.
Anne
bree
Anne Robotti wrote
> A call to our accountant last night revealed the opposite.
> He said that if it came down to it, we'd probably lose.
There's a way around this Anne. IRS form 8332, if your
DH could get BM to sign it that is. The form is a waiver
of exemption to the other parent. It can be used for one
tax year, or indefinitely depending on which way BM would
agree to.
> What a lovely country to be a dad in. Of course, in case anybody
wants to hear
> it again, she is voluntarily not working, we're providing almost
everything for
> SD.
The current IRS laws regarding CS need to be changed
IMO. From my experience, there are *many* CS payers
who agree. The way to do it is by petitioning your
Congressman. I feel CS should be deductible to the
payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
have to claim CS as income.
Faith
Anne Robotti
bree wrote:
>
> Anne Robotti wrote
> > A call to our accountant last night revealed the opposite.
> > He said that if it came down to it, we'd probably lose.
>
> There's a way around this Anne. IRS form 8332, if your
> DH could get BM to sign it that is.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, you were serious.
Anne
bree
Anne Robotti wrote
*laughing* I forgot that you BM and mine drink the
same water.
> Oh, you were serious.
Only on Tuesdays :-)
Faith
Mary M
audited, get free consultation from a local attorney. It's legally
written your husband claims her. I've been through it, it worked in our
favor, she has to pay not us. But it's not always the same everywhere.
Good Luck.
Tracey
writes:
>I feel CS should be deductible to the
>payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
>have to claim CS as income.
Well, just off the top of my head, I can't say that I agree.
*I* think that 'half-deductions' should be given in the case
of a divorce. With CS being deductible, you have the argu-
ment that non-divorced parents aren't able to deduct the
money they spend on their kids (and that's a perfectly
reasonable argument, AFAIC.)
As far as the receiver of CS being required to claim it as
income, I don't know about that. I think that a person
receiving CS should have to account for how that CS
is spent to a certain extent and, if the CS amount is
much higher than the cost of raising the child, then
maybe the rest should be considered income. (The
problem with that is *who* would get to decide how
much it *should* cost to raise a child? The COL is
so different in different areas one flat dollar amount
is not going to cut it.)
Tracey
Anne Robotti
Tracey wrote:
>
> Well, just off the top of my head, I can't say that I agree.
> *I* think that 'half-deductions' should be given in the case
> of a divorce. With CS being deductible, you have the argu-
> ment that non-divorced parents aren't able to deduct the
> money they spend on their kids (and that's a perfectly
> reasonable argument, AFAIC.)
I'm with you there Tracey, and that's saying something since I'm
generally pretty irrational on this whole subject.
>
> As far as the receiver of CS being required to claim it as
> income, I don't know about that. I think that a person
> receiving CS should have to account for how that CS
> is spent to a certain extent and, if the CS amount is
> much higher than the cost of raising the child, then
> maybe the rest should be considered income. (The
> problem with that is *who* would get to decide how
> much it *should* cost to raise a child? The COL is
> so different in different areas one flat dollar amount
> is not going to cut it.)
This I disagree with. CS is income. It's money you haven't earned
yourself, that is coming into your household. I think alimony
should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to
raise your child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you
use income for?
Anne
Tracey
>yourself, that is coming into your household. I think alimony
>should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to
>raise your child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you
>use income for?
I'm trying to figure out how to say this and having problems. I guess
it's because I consider 'income' as something that I have a choice
about as to how it's spent. CS is not 'income' because, *in theory*,
there's not a whole lot of choice what it's to be spent on. It is
*supposed* to be spent on the financial needs of the child. (I know,
I know, in practice the person receiving CS doesn't *have* to spend
it on the financial needs of the child, but that's why I also think that
CS should be accounted for.) I guess I feel that CS is somewhat
akin to the money that children receive from SS when a parent
dies. AFAIK, that money is not taxable. (Correct me if I'm wrong,
but I'm basing this on the fact that my parents never complained
about having to include the SS that my nephews received on their
taxes and I think they would have if they would have had to.)
IF the CS is being used 'correctly', then, to me, it's not income
but more just funds administered on behalf of the child. Does
that make any sense?
bree
Tracey wrote
>"bree" <a...@b.net> writes:
>
> >I feel CS should be deductible to the
> >payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
> >have to claim CS as income.
>
> *I* think that 'half-deductions' should be given in the case
> of a divorce. With CS being deductible, you have the argu-
> ment that non-divorced parents aren't able to deduct the
> money they spend on their kids (and that's a perfectly
> reasonable argument, AFAIC.)
hmm...I think you just swayed my opinion. Good idea!
Expanding on this, I would add that the deduction for
each parent should be proportionate to the % of CS
they are each responsible for (using federal CS guidelines).
So, if NCP is responsible for 60% of total CS he/she
would be entitled to 60% of allowed/allowable deductions
and credits. The only excludable amounts would be EIC.
IMO, they rightfully should be going to the custodial HH if
their low income qualifies them.
Faith
Nicole {Freezing in Wisconsin}
wrote:
>IF the CS is being used 'correctly', then, to me, it's not income
>but more just funds administered on behalf of the child. Does
>that make any sense?
Makes sense to me... even though I'm not in on this discussion.
Nicole :)
Didi
>With CS being deductible, you have the argument that non-divorced parents
aren't able to deduct the money they spend on their kids
I don't think that CS is deductible -- my DH pays income tax on the money
before it is even taken out of his check, and then BM doesn't have to claim it.
That's $12,000.00 a year that she gets tax-free with no need to account for
what a 7 year old girl needs with that much money. She's not saving for
college -- DH has to do that. She comes here in clothing and shoes too small
-- we buy new ones. DH pays for the medical insurance and anything not covered
by insurance..... <sigh>
Anne followed with:
>This I disagree with. CS is income. It's money you haven't earned yourself,
that is coming into your household. I think alimony
should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to raise your
child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you use income for?
I agree with this too, but as far as I know, isn't alimony income that the
receiver has to claim as income? I know that they don't have to claim CS, but
I thought that they needed to claim alimony.
It would appear that there should be some form of standardization regarding CS
-- the calculations, the use of, etc. The government came up with the whole
DRG system to regulate health care costs -- you'd think that they could do
something about CS. It seems ridiculous that I read about some parents who are
scraping by with CS of < $100 each month (if any) while other parents receive
$1,000 each month for one child.
Sarai
bust their asses paying cs and trying to be a good dad should get the
deductable, too.
Heather
"bree" <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:hrsz4.9362$FX.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> Anne Robotti wrote
> > A call to our accountant last night revealed the opposite.
> > He said that if it came down to it, we'd probably lose.
>
> There's a way around this Anne. IRS form 8332, if your
> DH could get BM to sign it that is. The form is a waiver
> of exemption to the other parent. It can be used for one
> tax year, or indefinitely depending on which way BM would
> agree to.
>
> > What a lovely country to be a dad in. Of course, in case anybody
> wants to hear
> > it again, she is voluntarily not working, we're providing almost
> everything for
> > SD.
>
> The current IRS laws regarding CS need to be changed
> IMO. From my experience, there are *many* CS payers
> who agree. The way to do it is by petitioning your
> Congressman. I feel CS should be deductible to the
> payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
> have to claim CS as income.
>
> Faith
>
>
>
merrie
non-blended family situations.
It's one exemption per kid. Making CS deductible would mean children of
divorce are claimed as an exemption and their support is a deduction, which
isn't fair to parents that are still together and only get to claim the
exemption.
I think the one exemption should be proportionally (not evenly) divided
between (divorced) parents based on the amount of taxes being paid.
I don't even want to go to "CS as income." Alimony - yes, CS - no.
Merrie
bree <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:hrsz4.9362$FX.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
>
merrie
>
> >
> > As far as the receiver of CS being required to claim it as
> > income, I don't know about that. I think that a person
> > receiving CS should have to account for how that CS
> > is spent to a certain extent and, if the CS amount is
> > much higher than the cost of raising the child, then
> > maybe the rest should be considered income. (The
> > problem with that is *who* would get to decide how
> > much it *should* cost to raise a child? The COL is
> > so different in different areas one flat dollar amount
> > is not going to cut it.)
>
> yourself, that is coming into your household. I think alimony
> should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to
> raise your child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you
> use income for?
>
>
...for getting my armpits waxed?
I'm really loathe to the idea that a person will think supporting their
child is income for their ex. To me, supporting your child is your
responsibility, employing your ex is not. I also don't think CP's should
view their children as paychecks. I also think CP's should spend all CS on
the kids, and not think of it as compensation for tending their kids.
Tending their children is supposed to be their contribution to the kids, and
they should not be reimbursed for it.
Whether or not a CP earns a wage to support themselves, or is paid alimony
for tending the kids because of an agreement *prior* to divorce (or after)
should be a separate thing. IMHO.
I don't think anyone would disagree that the BM in your situation is
past the point where she should get a job, because she should be supporting
at least herself, let alone a portion of SD's financial support (given SD's
age.)
Merrie
Anne Robotti
merrie wrote:
>
>
> ...for getting my armpits waxed?
>
> I'm really loathe to the idea that a person will think supporting their
> child is income for their ex. To me, supporting your child is your
> responsibility, employing your ex is not.
Well, yeah. Okay. But how are you *supposed* to view your child support when
the reality is that it's not supporting your child?!
> I don't think anyone would disagree that the BM in your situation is
> past the point where she should get a job, because she should be supporting
> at least herself, let alone a portion of SD's financial support (given SD's
> age.)
>
<sigh> Got it.
Anne
merrie
Tracey <rbran...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000314102719...@nso-fi.aol.com...
> >payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
> >have to claim CS as income.
>
> *I* think that 'half-deductions' should be given in the case
> ment that non-divorced parents aren't able to deduct the
> reasonable argument, AFAIC.)
But you still have children of divorce assessed as exemptions plus
half-deduction, children not of divorce assessed as just exemption.
I really think that one exemption per kid should apply. Seperated
parents should split it porportionally based on tax rate. Like in Anne's
case - BM pays 0 tax - she'd get a null portion of the exemption.
>
> As far as the receiver of CS being required to claim it as
> income, I don't know about that. I think that a person
> receiving CS should have to account for how that CS
> is spent to a certain extent and, if the CS amount is
> much higher than the cost of raising the child, then
> maybe the rest should be considered income. (The
> problem with that is *who* would get to decide how
> much it *should* cost to raise a child? The COL is
> so different in different areas one flat dollar amount
> is not going to cut it.)
>
> Tracey
>
>
>
merrie
>
> Tracey wrote
> >"bree" <a...@b.net> writes:
> >
> > >I feel CS should be deductible to the
> > >payer; the payee should have right to exemption *and*
> > >have to claim CS as income.
> >
> > Well, just off the top of my head, I can't say that I agree.
> > *I* think that 'half-deductions' should be given in the case
> > of a divorce. With CS being deductible, you have the argu-
> > ment that non-divorced parents aren't able to deduct the
> > money they spend on their kids (and that's a perfectly
> > reasonable argument, AFAIC.)
>
> Expanding on this, I would add that the deduction for
> each parent should be proportionate to the % of CS
> they are each responsible for (using federal CS guidelines).
> So, if NCP is responsible for 60% of total CS he/she
> would be entitled to 60% of allowed/allowable deductions
> and credits. The only excludable amounts would be EIC.
> IMO, they rightfully should be going to the custodial HH if
> their low income qualifies them.
>
> Faith
I have two problems with this:
1) How do you attatch a dollar figure to the "care" of a child that a CP
does more of? (and I know that's not always the case - which only adds
weight to this point)?
2) Why should the parents of children of divorce get to deduct anything
while non-divorced parents do not? Don't say it's because they get the
exemption, because one of the parents of the child of divorced are taking an
exemption too.
Merrie
>
>
Miles R. Fidelman
ultimately, is how many dollars go to taxes and how many get split among
the parents - all of which is subject to negotiation and/or trial. In
general, the goal is to minimize taxes and split what's left fairly.
From a tax strategy, some tactics that might apply are:
- making sure that if one parent is unmarried, making sure that parent can
file as head of household
- if a deduction, or deduction(s) save more money for one parent than the
other, than you can negotiate something where that person takes the
deduction(s) and splits some of the tax savings (either by cutting a check
or through a CS reduction)
Tracey
>does more of? (and I know that's not always the case - which only adds
>weight to this point)?
You don't. The IRS doesn't give an exemption for a child *only if* you
bake cookies for that child or give them a bath. The exemption is to help
defray the *cost* of raising the child, not as a payment for you sitting up
with them at night when they're sick.
>2) Why should the parents of children of divorce get to deduct anything
>while non-divorced parents do not? Don't say it's because they get the
>exemption, because one of the parents of the child of divorced are taking an
>exemption too.
I'm not sure what you're asking/saying here. I don't agree with the 'child
support should be a deduction for a NCP and added as income for a CP'
at all just because of that fact, that non-divorced parents don't get to de-
duct the money they spend on their kids. I just think that maybe it's more
equitable if the deductions are split every year (and that would mean that
a standard deduction would have to be split and seen as 'half a deduction'
if the number of children is odd) rather than to do this 'you get it one year,
I get it the next' or even leave it to the whim of a CP as to whether or not
they will 'give' it to the NCP.
Tracey
>half-deduction, children not of divorce assessed as just exemption.
I got my terms mixed up. I meant the exemption being split, not it
being a separate, additional deduction. Sorry, I'm not up on 'accounting
lingo' and to me, exemption = deduction. Sorry for the confusion.
--
Vicki Robinson
:This I disagree with. CS is income. It's money you haven't earned
:yourself, that is coming into your household. I think alimony
:should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to
:raise your child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you
:use income for?
In the US, CS is taxable to the payer (who earned the income and is
now spending it on his or her kids, just as would happen if the family
were intact), not taxable to the receiver. However, alimony *is*
deductable to the payer and taxable to the receiver. Spousal support
is considered income to the person receiving it, and therefore s/he
pays the taxes, not the person paying it.
In mediation, there's a lot of moving money around between CS and
spousal maintenance, since the tax impacts can be very different.
Often a high-income NCP prefers to pay a greater amount of maintenance
to a much-lower-income CP, because s/he gets a good tax benefit from
it, which makes it worth paying more in absolute dollars. If the CP
is low-income, the impact on his or her taxes will be ... well, not
negligible, but less drastic than for the other spouse. And that can
be balanced out too.
Vicki
--
Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution Resources:
http://www.rit.edu/~vjrnts/mediation/mediation.html
The alt.folklore.urban FAQ and archive can be found at
http://www.urbanlegends.com/
Vicki Robinson
:I also don't think CP's should
:view their children as paychecks. I also think CP's should spend all CS on
:the kids, and not think of it as compensation for tending their kids.
:Tending their children is supposed to be their contribution to the kids, and
:they should not be reimbursed for it.
:
There are NCPs who feel this way too, that they are paying their ex to
take care of the kids, and so they should never be asked to stay home
with a sick kid or take them to the doctor or do any of the un-fun
stuff that parents do. They get the good times, of course, but not
the work.
merrie
Didi <didi...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000314125045...@ng-fg1.aol.com...
> Tracey wrote:
>
> >With CS being deductible, you have the argument that non-divorced parents
> aren't able to deduct the money they spend on their kids
>
"With" is meant hypothetically here.
> I don't think that CS is deductible -- my DH pays income tax on the money
> before it is even taken out of his check, and then BM doesn't have to
claim it.
> That's $12,000.00 a year that she gets tax-free with no need to account
for
> what a 7 year old girl needs with that much money. She's not saving for
> college -- DH has to do that. She comes here in clothing and shoes too
small
> -- we buy new ones. DH pays for the medical insurance and anything not
covered
> by insurance..... <sigh>
>
> Anne followed with:
>
>
> >This I disagree with. CS is income. It's money you haven't earned
yourself,
> that is coming into your household. I think alimony
> should be counted as income too. The fact that you're using it to raise
your
> child seems to me to make no difference. What else do you use income for?
>
merrie
Tracey <rbra...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:38CE9A07...@mediaone.net...
> > But you still have children of divorce assessed as exemptions plus
> >half-deduction, children not of divorce assessed as just exemption.
>
> I got my terms mixed up. I meant the exemption being split, not it
> being a separate, additional deduction. Sorry, I'm not up on 'accounting
> lingo' and to me, exemption = deduction. Sorry for the confusion.
>
out!
Merrie
Anne Robotti
Vicki Robinson wrote:
>
> There are NCPs who feel this way too, that they are paying their ex to
> take care of the kids, and so they should never be asked to stay home
> with a sick kid or take them to the doctor or do any of the un-fun
> stuff that parents do. They get the good times, of course, but not
> the work.
>
Who gets the good times?! If you mean, "Get the good times at the whim
of the CP," then okay. Until the kids are old enough to understand dates,
times, places, all those "good times" often (as in our case) get lost under
an avalanche of "I forgot"'s and "I don't have to let you"'s and "Over my
dead body"'s. How sad for SD, who probably still believes we didnt' want to
come since that's what her mother said when she told her that of course she
called us but we weren't coming. How sad for DH, who missed every event in
SD's life until she was seven years old.
I know you didn't mean it that way Vicki, but there's no "of course" about it.
Anne
merrie
> >1) How do you attatch a dollar figure to the "care" of a child that a CP
> >does more of? (and I know that's not always the case - which only adds
> >weight to this point)?
>
> You don't. The IRS doesn't give an exemption for a child *only if* you
> bake cookies for that child or give them a bath. The exemption is to help
> defray the *cost* of raising the child, not as a payment for you sitting
up
> with them at night when they're sick.
>
> >2) Why should the parents of children of divorce get to deduct anything
> >while non-divorced parents do not? Don't say it's because they get the
> >exemption, because one of the parents of the child of divorced are taking
an
> >exemption too.
>
> I'm not sure what you're asking/saying here.
Both #1 and #2 were in response to Faith's following paragraph:
> Expanding on this, I would add that the deduction for
> each parent should be proportionate to the % of CS
> they are each responsible for (using federal CS guidelines).
> So, if NCP is responsible for 60% of total CS he/she
> would be entitled to 60% of allowed/allowable deductions
> and credits. The only excludable amounts would be EIC.
> IMO, they rightfully should be going to the custodial HH if
> their low income qualifies them.
>
> Faith
So #1 is asking Faith 60% of what? What being indeterminant because one
(and it seems you agree) can't assess a value on the parenting portion of
the support of a child. Faith wants to use federal CS guidelines - which
IMHO are pretty far removed from what actually goes into supporting/caring
for a child.
I don't agree with the 'child
> support should be a deduction for a NCP and added as income for a CP'
> at all just because of that fact, that non-divorced parents don't get to
de-
> duct the money they spend on their kids. I just think that maybe it's more
> equitable if the deductions are split every year (and that would mean that
> a standard deduction would have to be split and seen as 'half a deduction'
> if the number of children is odd) rather than to do this 'you get it one
year,
> I get it the next' or even leave it to the whim of a CP as to whether or
not
> they will 'give' it to the NCP.
>
Not to tick Anne off - but look at her situation again. BM has no
income. Every other year Anne wouldn't claim SD and Uncle Sam would be
getting more than he should. Suppose the BM in this senario manages to get
a part time job, and every other year she claims her daughter. Then every
other year, Uncle Sam will get more money from this stituation than he
should - because one year the child's exemption is worth a thousand dollars
(at Anne's tax rate) and the next year the exemption is worth 100 (BM's tax
rate).
Any BM with a shred of decency - would have Anne take the exemption
every year - and probably ask for her $100 tax break back from the $1000 tax
break that Anne would get.
So in order to make sure that Uncle Sam doesn't get more than his fair
share - the person with the higher income should always claim the dependent.
The person with the lower income should get their "fair" share of that tax
break.
(Which isn't IMHO, the entire tax break they would have gotten had they
claimed the exemption.)
Didi
>- if a deduction, or deduction(s) save more money for one parent than the
other, than you can negotiate something where that person takes the
deduction(s) and splits some of the tax savings (either by cutting a check or
through a CS reduction)
The day that BM agrees to give *any* money this way is the day that Clinton
tells the truth about his various relationships with those women!! :)
This is the BM who felt that my DH should buy her a new car every 3 years --
though *she* was the one who engaged in extra-marital relaionships throughout
their marriage! I doubt that she will ever be willing to be reasonable enough
to actually discuss what is the "best" scenario with the tax deduction!
<sigh> Anne, I think that our BM's appear to be very similar.....
Didi
>There are NCPs who feel this way too, that they are paying their ex to take
care of the kids, and so they should never be asked to stay home with a sick
kid or take them to the doctor or do any of the un-fun stuff that parents do.
They get the good times, of course, but not the work.
While I am sure that there are NCP's like this, I am very glad to know that my
DH is not like this at all! He is a wonderful and committed dad -- too bad BM
can't give him an ounce of credit for that!
Didi
>In mediation, there's a lot of moving money around between CS and spousal
maintenance, since the tax impacts can be very different.
Question: Is there a different formula figuring out CS depending on where the
tax deduction lies? That is where this whole situation started -- with the
mediator. Apparently, she assumed that BM was entitiled to the deduction,
without clarifying prior agreements. If this is corrected, formally, will
there be a possibility of a change in CS?
<I think that he's leaning towards going back to the mediator to change a lot
of the formal agreements.....>
bree
merrie wrote
> > Expanding on this, I would add that the deduction for
> > each parent should be proportionate to the % of CS
> > they are each responsible for (using federal CS guidelines).
> > So, if NCP is responsible for 60% of total CS he/she
> > would be entitled to 60% of allowed/allowable deductions
> > and credits. The only excludable amounts would be EIC.
> > IMO, they rightfully should be going to the custodial HH if
> > their low income qualifies them.
> >
> > Faith
>
> So #1 is asking Faith 60% of what?
Proportionate to % of CS responsibility of each parent.
Merrie, this was just my POV.
> What being indeterminant because one
> (and it seems you agree) can't assess a value on the parenting
portion of
> the support of a child. Faith wants to use federal CS
guidelines - which
> IMHO are pretty far removed from what actually goes into
supporting/caring
> for a child.
I'm only referring to CS.
And this is only my opinion, not the law :-)
*hug*
Faith
Tracey
>out!
Well, if it was, when I gave you the information I really *gave* you
the information, because I sure as heck don't have it right now!
--
Vicki Robinson
:Question: Is there a different formula figuring out CS depending on where the
:tax deduction lies? That is where this whole situation started -- with the
:mediator. Apparently, she assumed that BM was entitiled to the deduction,
:without clarifying prior agreements. If this is corrected, formally, will
:there be a possibility of a change in CS?
:
It depends entirely upon where you live. In New York State, where I
mediate, CS is determined by a simple formula that takes both bioparents'
incomes into account. (However, the NCP's contribution to CS depends
100% on his/her income, not on the CP's income.) Tax consequences are
taken into account by either lawyers or mediators (whoever is doing
the calculating), because the court wants to see documentation that
tax consequences have been examined before they'll OK an agreement.
Now, the Feds assume that the CP will get the exemption for the kids.
(One of the problems here is that people are saying "deduction" when
they mean "exemption". They're very different, although they function
similarly.) It doesn't depend on who is providing 50% of the kids'
support in cases of divorce, it's who's got custody. Now, the CP
might want to allow the NCP to take the exemptions because they're
worth more to the NCP, in return for perhaps a slightly higher amount
of CS or ... well, there are *LOTS* of trade-offs that are possible.
The CP can sign a Form 8332 to relinquish the exemption for one year
or for all future years, and that needs to be filed with the NCP's tax
forms.
The mediator should have checked with both of them about the kids'
exemptions, but it's the usual arrangement for the CP to keep the
exemptions. And, now, the tax credits. But, in NY at least, the
formula doesn't change. What we do is calculate what *each* parent
owes in child support (the CP is assumed to be paying him- or
herself). We look at the tax consequences of each parent taking the
exemptions, and figure out how to balance that out.
My ex gets the exemptions for our kids, even though now they'd be
worth more to my husband and me, and, because of that, he gets the tax
credits too. But it's not worth fighting over now, in my case.
:<I think that he's leaning towards going back to the mediator to change a lot
:of the formal agreements.....>
:
I'm glad he's thinking of mediating *first*, not going for litigation
right out of the gate.
merrie
Tracey <rbra...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:38CEBBDD...@mediaone.net...
bree
equitable CS formula from what you've said here. It's
good to see that New York takes into account the tax
consequences and benefits of both parties, and sad that
we don't have a uniform CS format nationally. The problem
with the federal guidelines is that individual states are not
required to adopt them, and many states do not address
tax issues such as New York does.
I didn't quite understand what this means. Would you
mind ?
> In New York State, where I mediate, CS is determined by
> a simple formula that takes both bioparents' incomes into
> account. (However, the NCP's contribution to CS depends
> 100% on his/her income, not on the CP's income.)
Thanks
Faith
merrie
We're talking about "if I were king..."
The problem I would have if you were king and splitting the exemption
based on the percentage of CS paid by NCP based on federal guidelines is
exemplified by the following:
Both NCP and CP work at well paying jobs. CP has 80% custody, so NCP
pays a large amount of CS, so large that compared to federal guidelines -
NCP's paying 110%!
But the child, thanks to her wealthy CP, lives in a palace, goes to the
best private school and has a herd of horses. Clearly, the CP spends twice
as much money supporting the child than the NCP does.
Yet, if you were king - the NCP would get the entire exemption, the CP while
spending twice as much on support, would get nothing.
bree <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:T_xz4.9394$FX.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
merrie
speaking hypothetically here - because none of us have the power to make tax
laws.
But if you want people to write their congressmen, the least we can do
is come up with a just, and rational plan that will work in *all* cases.
Do you see any problems with splitting the exemption proportionally on
how much tax each parent pays?
Merrie
bree <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:mCAz4.9448$FX.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> merrie <mer...@svn.net> wrote in message
> news:pkAz4.1672$U3.6...@news.pacbell.net...
> > I know we're not talking law here.
> >
> > We're talking about "if I were king..."
>
> Ouch!
>
> How about we shake hands and concede that
> we disagree?
>
> *hug*
> Faith
>
>
>
merrie
bree <a...@b.net> wrote in message
news:glBz4.9451$FX.4...@news1.news.adelphia.net...
>
> merrie wrote
>
> > LOL! "If I were king" is just another way to say we realize
> we're just
> > speaking hypothetically here
>
> I know :-) I'm just in a slumpy mood. I spent 10 hours
> last week writing a essay for an English Lit. class, and
> editing, and rewritng till it was perfect. My professor
> said it was great, except "couldn't I relate it to 12th
> century rather than compare it to modern day ideals?".
> So I spent today redoing the whole #@% thing.
>
> So far as taxes, kids and the world go, I think we should
> petition to abolish all taxes, be required to have kids in
> sets of twins sending one to each household, that we
> should all be wealthy and live in palaces thus eliminating
> CS and custody issues, that Louise's boys do it right
> the *first* time, that kitly gets a day off from laundry, that
> Thelma and Louise ride the west coast again, and that
> college professors aren't so damned picky :-)
>
> Faith
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
bree
Vicki Robinson
:
:I didn't quite understand what this means. Would you
:mind ?
:
:> In New York State, where I mediate, CS is determined by
:> a simple formula that takes both bioparents' incomes into
:> account. (However, the NCP's contribution to CS depends
:> 100% on his/her income, not on the CP's income.)
Easy.
I take husband's gross salary, subtract previous obligations for CS
and spousal support, subtract FICA tax, and then figure out a
percentage of what's left; 17% for one child, 25% for two, 29% for 3,
31% for 4, 35% or more for 5 or more children. That's his
contribution to CS *regardless of who has custody*. Then I take
wife's salary and do the same calculation. That's her contribution to
CS *regardless of who has custody*. The NCP pays the amount
calculated on the basis of his or her income to the CP. The CP pays
him or herself. If the NCP's share comes out to, say $500 per month,
then that's what it is, whether the CP is making a million bucks a
year or nothing. It all depends on the NCP's income.
Now, proportionality *does* come into play when add-ons for uninsured
medical expenses and day care are calculated. The annual costs for
uninsured medical expenses and day care are added together, then
amortized over 12 months. Each parent pays his or her share of these
depending on his or her relative contribution to the joint income.
Add together mom's and dad's incomes. Calculate the percentage that each
contributes. Calculate the amounts of the uninsured medical and day care
for each percentage. The NCP pays the CP this amount on top of the CS.
A worksheet is included with the separation/divorce agreement to show
that these calculations have been demonstrated and explained to both
parents.
Now, the fun begins. The parents can increase or decrease their CS
amounts in exchange for other concessions. This is where the tax stuff
might come into play; the CP might trade the exemptions for a piece of
what the NCP saves on taxes. An NCP paying $1000 a month in CS for two
kids might save $3000 in taxes if he claims the exemptions. They might
only be worth $1500 to the CP. So the CP loses $1500 by giving the NCP
the exemptions, the NCP gains $3000. So he might agree to reimburse the
CP $1500. Then the CP isn't out a penny, and the NCP gets $1500 that
he wouldn't have gotten otherwise. The CP might hold out for a little
more, actually; say splitting the benefit to NCP. Then they'd each be
up $750 if the CP lets the NCP have the exemptions. Win/win, I'd say.
There are other ways to trade, too. Let's say that the mom is
CP, and she thinks that the $1400 that is calculated for her ex to pay
for both CS and the other expenses is too much, since she has a good
job. What she wants is, instead, $900 a month, and a share in any
future raises that her ex might get. In other words, she takes $500
per month less in exchange for automatic increases in CS as her ex
earns more, based on his rate of increase. This would make excellent
sense for, say, the wife of a medical student. She takes some of the
pressure off of him in the early years in exchange for sharing in his
increasing earning power as time goes by and the kids require more.
The only limits on this kind of horse-trade are imposed by your
imagination. As long as it's clear that both parties know what
they're agreeing to and no one is insanely disadvantaged, the court
will agree.
bree
Lori
Vicki Robinson <vjr...@xcski.com> wrote in message
news:8am733$dhu$1...@allhats.xcski.com...
In a previous article, "merrie" <mer...@svn.net> said:
:I also don't think CP's should
:view their children as paychecks. I also think CP's should spend all CS on
:the kids, and not think of it as compensation for tending their kids.
:Tending their children is supposed to be their contribution to the kids,
and
:they should not be reimbursed for it.
:
There are NCPs who feel this way too, that they are paying their ex to
take care of the kids, and so they should never be asked to stay home
with a sick kid or take them to the doctor or do any of the un-fun
stuff that parents do. They get the good times, of course, but not
the work.
Except, when the CP has chosen to be the CP, and the only way the NCP can be
anything but a visitor to his kids is to fight her tooth and nail, then
sorry, he is *entitled* to the good times. God knows, in most cases the
only time an NCP gets with his kids is four days a month (alternate
weekends), and a few weeks in the summer months. When the system is equal,
as in, dad gets 50% physical custody, then yes, he should be equally
responsible for thingsa like staying home with sick kids. But when all he
gets is a few days a month to try and have time with his kids, and the CP
doesn't have to fight at all to be declared the primary (real) parent, then
if she wanted all the rights she can also have all the responsibilty. And
in my book, that should include the financial responsibility as well.
Lori
Vicki Robinson
:Except, when the CP has chosen to be the CP, and the only way the NCP can be
:anything but a visitor to his kids is to fight her tooth and nail, then
:sorry, he is *entitled* to the good times. God knows, in most cases the
:only time an NCP gets with his kids is four days a month (alternate
:weekends), and a few weeks in the summer months. When the system is equal,
:as in, dad gets 50% physical custody, then yes, he should be equally
:responsible for thingsa like staying home with sick kids.
But Lori, I was specifically not talking about those NCPs. I was
specifically addressing the NCPs who see CS as a kind of day care fee
that gets them off the hook for real parenting care for their kids.
"I pay you child support, *you* take him to the doctor." This has
nothing to do with CPs who hoard their children's time, but NCPs who
don't *want* more than every other weekend and one weeknight, who
think of their time without the kids as their real time, and see
their weekends with the kids as babysitting for the CP. They won't
take extra time with their kids because it'll give the CP "a break"
and after all, why are they paying CS if they have to have the kids
more than 3 days out of 14?
Those were the NCPs I was talking about. And there are more of them
out there than you might believe.
Lori
In a previous article, "Lori" <justa...@bigfoot.com> said:
:Except, when the CP has chosen to be the CP, and the only way the NCP can
be
:anything but a visitor to his kids is to fight her tooth and nail, then
:sorry, he is *entitled* to the good times. God knows, in most cases the
:only time an NCP gets with his kids is four days a month (alternate
:weekends), and a few weeks in the summer months. When the system is
equal,
:as in, dad gets 50% physical custody, then yes, he should be equally
:responsible for thingsa like staying home with sick kids.
But Lori, I was specifically not talking about those NCPs. I was
specifically addressing the NCPs who see CS as a kind of day care fee
that gets them off the hook for real parenting care for their kids.
"I pay you child support, *you* take him to the doctor." This has
nothing to do with CPs who hoard their children's time, but NCPs who
don't *want* more than every other weekend and one weeknight, who
think of their time without the kids as their real time, and see
their weekends with the kids as babysitting for the CP. They won't
take extra time with their kids because it'll give the CP "a break"
and after all, why are they paying CS if they have to have the kids
more than 3 days out of 14?
Those were the NCPs I was talking about. And there are more of them
out there than you might believe.
I know there are. And if those are the NCP's you were talking about, then I
misunderstood. I agree, if dad *chooses* not to take fairness when offered
(i.e. equal parenting time, etc) then he is choosing to bear the
responsibility for that choice, and should pay CS. On the other hand, as I
said, if the only way that dad could have equal status as a parent, equal
parenting time, etc, is by fighting in court at great cost, then he should
never have to pay one solitary cent. Any parent who wants to be the primary
parent should be prepared to shoulder the total financial responsibility for
that choice. And, as you say, with regards to those NCP's who are visitors
by choice, they should also be prepared to shoulder total financial
responsibility for that choice.
Lori
Gecko
didi...@aol.comnospam (Didi ) wrote:
> O.k., I have a question for you guys -- DH is trying to contact his
attorney,
> but I figured that this is probably a pretty common problem, so I
thought that
> I would ask you guys.
>
> In original divorce decree, it clearly states that DH gets to claim
SD for
> Federal tax purposes. In Feb. 1999, DH and BM went to Friend of the
Court
> (The state of MI's mediation services) to discuss visitation,
custody, and
> child support issues. Never was it discussed that the Federal tax
exemption
> would change -- never. However, apparently when the child support was
> calculated, the mediator assumed that BM got the tax deduction
(didn't ask
> either) and simply wrote that in her notations. So, now we are trying
to
> organize our taxes for 1999, and we find out that BM has claimed SD
on her
> taxes..... Grrrr..... She claimed that she saw that calculation on
the papers
> and asked her attorney who told her to go for it. She didn't clarify
it,
> however, with the Friend of the Court, and when we did today, we were
told that
> unless it was specifically written as a change, the original decree
holds true.
> What do we do now? DH basically thinks that BM would be the one held
> responsible if audited, but I'm not sure that that is the case. He
has a more
> laissez-faire attitude while I like to make sure that things are
legal and
> above-board.
>
> Didi
> "A dead thing can go with a stream, only a living thing can go
against it."
> G.K. Chesterton
>
it, she's violating the decree and she can be held in contempt of
court. Depending on how you feel about that, you may want to pursue it.
~gecko~
--
"Life. Don't talk to me about life."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kim Scheinberg
>
>But Lori, I was specifically not talking about those NCPs. I was
>specifically addressing the NCPs who see CS as a kind of day care fee
>that gets them off the hook for real parenting care for their kids.
>"I pay you child support, *you* take him to the doctor." This has
>nothing to do with CPs who hoard their children's time, but NCPs who
>don't *want* more than every other weekend and one weeknight, who
>think of their time without the kids as their real time, and see
>their weekends with the kids as babysitting for the CP. They won't
>take extra time with their kids because it'll give the CP "a break"
>and after all, why are they paying CS if they have to have the kids
>more than 3 days out of 14?
I dunno, Vicki. Sometimes I think this is me regarding SD. And despite the
fact that I'll bet DH has one of the highest CS payments (and SS payments)
of anyone on this board, you seldom -- if ever -- hear me gripe about it
SD is here every other weekend by *her* choice. And when she *is* here,
it's an endless litany of, "I need a ride to A and have to be picked up
from B and where's my allowance and I'm sleeping over one place on Friday
and another on Saturday." And yes, I know I'm describing every teen-age
girl in America. And yes, I realize I'm *still* irritated over the car
thing, and the five months last year when we did *all* the driving for SS'
basketball league (including picking him at mom's and taking him and
dropping him off during her custody) because BM decided to back out after
SS had signed up and DH knew it mattered to SS
I also know this is partly DH's failing for letting such a chasm develop
between himself and SD, particularly during those months when she wanted
to punish him for leaving. (In his defense, I'll add that when I bitch to
him about some of this stuff, he says he gets a chance to spend time with
her and he knows it's important to her. He's far less bothered by it than
I am. I think it only bugs him when he's feeling used by SD)
So when BM calls and says SD is getting her braces off and it involves 6
appointments and DH needs to accompany her to three of them because BM
can't miss work? You bet part of me feels like BM gets support based on
80% custody so she should handle 80% of those appointments. And that stems
in part from feeling like there aren't that many good times, either
(Mind you, DH never refuses extra time with SD when she wants to come
a few days early or stay a day late, or even when BM needs him to cover
when she's out of town. It's the, "You can miss work, but I can't"
situations that are so grating)
Babies and teen-agers. They're just complete parasites. Please tell me
there are some good years in between
-k.
--
ik...@panix.com | The Max Cam is up and running! Try it:
Kim Scheinberg | www.panix.com/~jzk TAKE PICTURE
merrie
isn't just between two parties, there is a third party who's interests need
to be considered and their interests given the priority.
If you have a situation where, what is considered best for the children
is residence with one parent 80% of the time, I don't think that because
it's not what the 20% parent wanted, alleviates that parent from financial
or parental responsibilities.
Merrie
merrie
rather how much more money DH would have if he takes the exemptions.
Here in CA, if you own your home it will bump up your CS because of the
tax break you get from deducting the mortgage interest.
IMO, your BM shouldn't get the entire amount of the tax break that should
would have gotten by claiming the exemptions. She should get a proportion.
Why should she get the entire benefit from an exemption while you do not?
Can I beat this dead horse or what?
Merrie
<T.C.> wrote in message news:38d4d69d....@enews.newsguy.com...
> On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 00:01:36 GMT, fide...@world.std.com (Miles R.
> Fidelman) wrote:
>
> >this could be a double-edged sword: if the tax deduction was factored
into
> >the child support calculation, then BM might argue that if she doesn't
> >take the tax deduction, then she should get additional child support
> >
>
> When the court ruled on our tax exemption status, BM actually
> suggested this. Despite the fact that she will lose abolutely nothing
> by DH claiming the exemptions - he has to reimburse her the full
> amount of the difference.
>
> Methinks she is not so good at math....
>
>
> -TC
> tech.nos...@newsguy.com
Vicki Robinson
< IMO, your BM shouldn't get the entire amount of the tax break that should
<would have gotten by claiming the exemptions. She should get a proportion.
<Why should she get the entire benefit from an exemption while you do not?
<
< Can I beat this dead horse or what?
<
You're good, but I'm better.
In the interests of *equity* however, if the benefit to one party
would be much greater than the benefit to the other, why shouldn't the
party with the lesser benefit get the whole amount, if it still leaves
part of the benefit for the other person?
I'm going to use the example I did in an earlier post, so you can stop
reading now.
The exemptions are worth $1500 in tax savings to me, and worth
$3000 in tax savings to you. I, by default, get the exemptions. You,
understandably, want them. If you at least reimburse me my $1500 that
I will have to pay in additional taxes if I give them to you, that's
at least the minimum I would expect. If you pay me the $1500, I'm in
*exactly* the same spot that I would have been in had I kept the
exemptions. You're $1500 to the good. So, why should I do it? To be
a nice guy? Well, there *is* that. But when you're talking post-marital
equity, then expecting someone to do something that benefits you to
the tune of $1500 and getting nothing in return is probably expecting
too much. So, you split the remaining $1500 somehow. I favor 50/50,
but that's not graven in stone.
That way, a CP who is not inclined to cooperate actually benefits
*more* from cooperating than s/he would by digging in hir heels. The
NCP is still ahead; not by as much as if s/he'd just managed to snag
the entire exemption without compensating the CP, but s/he's still
ahead.
Who loses? No one, unless it's become a contest in which it's not
only necessary that I win, but you have to lose and lose big. Those
are the fights that end up in litigation.
merrie
I agree with you that sharing is the way to get people to co-operate,
and one might take that approach if trying to get people to agree But when
it gets left for a judge to decide, it isn't fair that one party get the
full benefit of their child's exemption and the other party doesn't.
I think both CP's and NCP's should get a portion of the exemption and
neither one get full-benefit.
>
>
> In the interests of *equity* however, if the benefit to one party
> would be much greater than the benefit to the other, why shouldn't the
> party with the lesser benefit get the whole amount, if it still leaves
> part of the benefit for the other person?
>
Because there is something disgusting about a person that tries to
benefit themselves off of another's misfourtune. In this case, that
misfortune being an unjust tax law.
Using your example the exemption to person A is worth 1500 to them, for
person B's = 3000.
The judge in Lindy's situation has deemed that it's fair that person B
reimburse person A to the tune of 1500. Person A gets the full benefit of
the exemption.
In your mediation, you propose that person B reimburse person A to the
tune of 2250, meaning that person A not only gets the full benefit of the
exemption, but actually makes a profit off of person B's unfortunate
circumstances.
If I were judge, person B would be reimbursing person A to the tune of
1020, and person A nor person B would be getting the full benefit of the
exemption. They'd actually be sharing it in porportion to the tax they each
have to pay.
Did you want to borrow my whip?
merrie
No - I think you are right about the precedence of IRS rules over a
state court. And this problem probably applies to all situations where the
judge has made a decision regarding taxes. That custodial parent can take
the exemption and the only thing the other parent could do would be to take
them to court.
And you're right a person wouldn't give up their right to exemptions
without compensation above and beyond what the exemption is worth to them.
But that just further shows how unjust the current IRS regulation is; when
it makes it so that one person can extort money from another.
I'm not being pragmatic, but rather giving my opinion based on what I
think is fair.
> < If I were judge, person B would be reimbursing person A to the tune
of
> <1020, and person A nor person B would be getting the full benefit of the
> <exemption. They'd actually be sharing it in porportion to the tax they
each
> <have to pay.
> <
>
> No, they share it in proportion to how much income they have, which is
> a different thing.
>
No - I'm referring to the tax break that each exemption is worth to
each party. If an exemption is worth a $2700 reduction in the taxable
income, then I would look at the difference in the amount of tax of those
two income levels. This means that it's irrelevant if you have other
deductions. The amount of tax is derived from the charts.
If the difference in tax is $50 dollars to person A and $200 dollars to
person B, then person A's porportioned share of tax savings should be 20%
while person B's is 80%. This seems appropriate to me because for all other
non-divorced parents - their what their child's exemption is worth is
related to how much tax they have to pay.
I'm actually referring to the amount of tax they each have to pay.
Merrie
> It's possible here that I'm talking through my hat; any lawyers out
> there who want to correct me please do so.
>
> However, I'm pretty sure that IRS regs trump a judge's court order.
> The ex-wife here is, by IRS rules, entitled to the exemption by
> default. If giving her ex the exemptions nets her less than she would
> get by retaining them, why would she do it? Would any of us willingly
> give our ex (who has more money than we do in the first place, or the
> exemptions wouldn't be worth more to them) a gift of a couple thousand
> dollars at a cost of over $400 to ourselves?
>
> That's asking a lot.
>
> If they both can come out with more money by cooperating than they
> would get by resisting each other, then that's the best solution.
> Everyone wins, no one loses.
>
> <
> < Did you want to borrow my whip?
> <
>
> Well... ok.
>
> "Hey Honey! Merrie says we can..."
>
> Oh, the Dead Horse whip. Oh, never mind then.
merrie
The children's needs should be considered more than the parents rights.
I can think of a variety of situations where children may need to be in
one home 80% of the time, overrides each parent's right to equal custody.
If parents were to be living far apart and it's difficult for a child to
attend one school. I think a child should attend one school and I think
that commute time should be kept under half an hour.
In the case of preschool age children, I think it is best for them if
they are tended by a biological parent a majority of the time.
Often while still together, parents make an agreement that one parent will
tend children and the other seeks to bring in an income.
After separation - generally one parent has a higher earning power than the
other. In determining which configuration of what parent stays home and
what parent earns money, one configuration is clearly of a better benefit
for the kids than the other. Not because either parent is a better parent
than the other, but because one's earning capacity is greater.
In the case of teenage children, I think that their own preferences
should carry some weight.
Lori <justa...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:95342129...@axilla.wwnet.net...
>
> merrie <mer...@svn.net> wrote in message
> news:P7hA4.628$u44....@news.pacbell.net...
> If we were talking about a boat - I think I'd agree with you. But
this
> isn't just between two parties, there is a third party who's interests
need
> to be considered and their interests given the priority.
>
> If you have a situation where, what is considered best for the
children
> is residence with one parent 80% of the time, I don't think that because
> it's not what the 20% parent wanted, that it alleviates that parent from
financial
> or parental responsibilities.
>
>
> Merrie
>
>
> I think it does, *unless* the reason it is deemed best for the child to be
> with one parent over the other is that the "lesser" parent is *proveably*
a
> danger to the child. In other words, if dad is a good parent during his
> "visitation" time, then why is he not good enough to have equal parenting?
I don't think it's an issue of not being good enough to have equal
parenting, it's a question of what's the best configuration for the kids, of
who's watching and who's working.
> If he is *also* a good parent, loves his kids, and actually wants to be a
> full parent (as opposed to being a visitor), then he should not have to
> fight for it at the probable cost of everything he has financially... it
> should be the rebuttable presumption that he will have 50% residential
> custody.
When I look at CA law - it looks like this to me. It states that
each parent is equally entitled to custody. There is however, a provision
that states that the best interests of the children have priority.
Merrie
If he is denied that for any reason other than that he is
> proveably a danger to the kids, then I believe that yes, that should
absolve
> him of financial responsibility.
> Lori
Vicki Robinson
< If I were judge, person B would be reimbursing person A to the tune of
<1020, and person A nor person B would be getting the full benefit of the
<exemption. They'd actually be sharing it in porportion to the tax they each
<have to pay.
<
No, they share it in proportion to how much income they have, which is
a different thing.
It's possible here that I'm talking through my hat; any lawyers out
Lori
merrie <mer...@svn.net> wrote in message
news:P7hA4.628$u44....@news.pacbell.net...
If we were talking about a boat - I think I'd agree with you. But this
isn't just between two parties, there is a third party who's interests need
to be considered and their interests given the priority.
If you have a situation where, what is considered best for the children
is residence with one parent 80% of the time, I don't think that because
it's not what the 20% parent wanted, alleviates that parent from financial
or parental responsibilities.
Merrie
I think it does, *unless* the reason it is deemed best for the child to be
with one parent over the other is that the "lesser" parent is *proveably* a
danger to the child. In other words, if dad is a good parent during his
"visitation" time, then why is he not good enough to have equal parenting?
If he is *also* a good parent, loves his kids, and actually wants to be a
full parent (as opposed to being a visitor), then he should not have to
fight for it at the probable cost of everything he has financially... it
should be the rebuttable presumption that he will have 50% residential
custody. If he is denied that for any reason other than that he is
bree
> However, I'm pretty sure that IRS regs trump a judge's
> court order.
This is correct.
Faith
bree
> Give me back my whip before you get it all... nevermind.
Give me back my leather binders and I'll return
your whip ;-)
> No - I think you are right about the precedence of IRS
rules over a
> state court. And this problem probably applies to all
situations where the
> judge has made a decision regarding taxes. That custodial
parent can take
> the exemption and the only thing the other parent could do would
be to take them to court.
Judges can't trump IRS law. They can, however, reduce
CP's support to compensate for NCP's loss due to CP's violation of
court order.
Faith
Lori
I think the rights of the children have a priority over parental rights.
The children's needs should be considered more than the parents rights.
I can think of a variety of situations where children may need to be in
one home 80% of the time, overrides each parent's right to equal custody.
If parents were to be living far apart and it's difficult for a child to
attend one school. I think a child should attend one school and I think
that commute time should be kept under half an hour.
This is a point which could be used to rebut 50/50 custody. Frankly, if the
kids are in school, and one parent moves far enough away that they could not
stay with the same school, that parent is by chosen action stating that they
do not wish to work together for 50/50 custody, IMO.
In the case of preschool age children, I think it is best for them if
they are tended by a biological parent a majority of the time.
Often while still together, parents make an agreement that one parent will
tend children and the other seeks to bring in an income.
After separation - generally one parent has a higher earning power than the
other. In determining which configuration of what parent stays home and
what parent earns money, one configuration is clearly of a better benefit
for the kids than the other. Not because either parent is a better parent
than the other, but because one's earning capacity is greater.
I would have to disagree. While married, parents can choose to have one at
home while the other earns, but if the marriage ends, then the wage earner
should have every right to refuse to be the only working parent any longer.
Therefore, once divorced, both parents will have to work anyway, which means
the kids, preschool or not, are going to spend the bulk of their day being
tended to by childcare workers, not a bio parent, anyway. so there's no
reason that the rebuttable presumption of 50/50 residential custody should
not apply.
In the case of teenage children, I think that their own preferences
should carry some weight.
I don't agree. In families where parents are married to each other the
children do not, upon reaching teen status, get the right to choose where
they will reside from then on. Parents make such decisions on behalf of
their kids. I believe very strongly in the concept of a rebuttable
presumption of 50/50 residential custody with no CS changing hands. The key
word is "rebuttable". what this would do is shift things to where, instead
of fathers having to fight themselves into financial ruin (as often happens)
to get equal parenting, instead of a father having to prove the mother is
unfit before he can have equal parental status, the presumption would be
joint residential, unless the parent who desires to be primary parent can
prove the other parent is a danger to the child. Thus, instead of the
father's request for shared parenting being dead in the water unless the
mother will agree to it, he will begin with the exact same custodial rights
that the mother has, and if *either* of them would prefer to reduce the
other to a visitor, then he/she will have to *prove* that there is a valid
reason to do so. A parent, even a father, should not have to prove that the
mother is a monster before he can have equal parenting status - it should
have to be proven that *he* is a monster before equal parenting status may
be denied to him.
Lori
Vicki Robinson
Lori, is it possible for you to somehow identify quoted material, and
your new additions? My text newsreader makes no distinction at all
between what you're quoting from a previous post and what you're
adding, and it makes it awfully hard sometimes to separate your
response from what you're responding to!
You're using Outlook Express which I'm sure has a setting for setting
off quoted material, although I don't know what it is. I'm sure
someone here can help!
Anne Robotti
Lori wrote:
>
> This is a point which could be used to rebut 50/50 custody. Frankly, if the
> kids are in school, and one parent moves far enough away that they could not
> stay with the same school, that parent is by chosen action stating that they
> do not wish to work together for 50/50 custody, IMO.
>
This happened to us, BM moved 45 minutes away. And took SD with her. And then
demanded that we go to every other weekend custody. Oh well. Who's going to tell
her no?!
Anne
Lori
Anne Robotti <rob...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:38D541EF...@worldnet.att.net...
Not the judge, that's for sure. The family court system cares about the
rights of *one* person, the custodial parent (usually mom). They do not
care about the *child's* right to have more than a visitor for a father.
Lori
Geri and Brian
>mother is a monster before he can have equal parenting status - it should
>have to be proven that *he* is a monster before equal parenting status may
>be denied to him.
As much as I dislike our situation of 50/50 custody, I have to totally agree
with this statement. I believe in our situation had the mother had the
documentation against us that we provided to the court against her, we would be
lucky to see my SD on weekends. We had to fight our butts off just to get the
50/50 we already had, plus the few little perks they threw in that BM did not
get.
Geri
~~~~~~~~
There is indeed, no single quality of the cat that man could not emulate to his
advantage. ~~~ Carl Van Vechten
~~~~~~~~~~
To e-mail us, dump the litterbox. :-)
merrie
>
> merrie <mer...@svn.net> wrote in message
> news:_ZZA4.2242$NE1....@news.pacbell.net...
> > I think the rights of the children have a priority over parental
rights.
> > The children's needs should be considered more than the parents rights.
> >
> > I can think of a variety of situations where children may need to be
in
> > one home 80% of the time, overrides each parent's right to equal
custody.
> >
> > If parents were to be living far apart and it's difficult for a child
to
> > attend one school. I think a child should attend one school and I think
> > that commute time should be kept under half an hour.
> >
> >
the
> kids are in school, and one parent moves far enough away that they could
not
> stay with the same school, that parent is by chosen action stating that
they
> do not wish to work together for 50/50 custody, IMO.
>
special program that suits him best for his education. The distance is
further for one parent than the other - and not because either parent moved.
> >
> > In the case of preschool age children, I think it is best for them if
> > they are tended by a biological parent a majority of the time.
> > Often while still together, parents make an agreement that one parent
will
> > tend children and the other seeks to bring in an income.
> > After separation - generally one parent has a higher earning power than
the
> > other. In determining which configuration of what parent stays home
and
> > what parent earns money, one configuration is clearly of a better
benefit
> > for the kids than the other. Not because either parent is a better
parent
> > than the other, but because one's earning capacity is greater.
>
>
> I would have to disagree. While married, parents can choose to have one
at
> home while the other earns, but if the marriage ends, then the wage earner
> should have every right to refuse to be the only working parent any
longer.
We just plain disagree on this point. What would this "right" be
based on? The way I see it - these people make an agreement and they can't
just unilaterally back out any more than one business partner can leave the
other holding all the debts.
> Therefore, once divorced, both parents will have to work anyway,
A wrong assumption.
which
means
> the kids, preschool or not, are going to spend the bulk of their day being
> tended to by childcare workers, not a bio parent, anyway.
The very thing that I think it's best to avoid. This isn't a slight
against working moms. I think that parents get to decide for themselves how
they want to raise their kids, but I also think that a kid is fortunate to
be spending the bulk of their time with a parent. But if parents can't
agree and there is one parent that wants to stay home with a preschool age
child, I think that should be accommodated.
so there's no
> reason that the rebuttable presumption of 50/50 residential custody should
> not apply.
>
Do you think that the right to 50/50 physical custody overrides the
parents decision to breastfed an infant?
>
> > In the case of teenage children, I think that their own preferences
> > should carry some weight.
>
>
> I don't agree. In families where parents are married to each other the
> children do not, upon reaching teen status, get the right to choose where
> they will reside from then on.
But we're not talking about teens of intact families, and the choices of
teens of intact families isn't relevant.
Parents make such decisions on behalf of
> their kids.
Yes - teens have to live with the decisions that parents make - which is
all the more reason why their preferences need to be considered. I'm not
referring to small children here that will accept their parents unfair
decisions as final. I'm talking about teens that can make life a living
hell if they feel they've been unjustly treated.
I've never felt (in CA) this was a father/mother issue. I've always
thought of it as a primary care taker versus primary wage earner issue.
While it does seem to be a male/female thing while the child is an infant
and being breastfed, there are SAH Dads that get custody.
I can see no reason why a Dad shouldn't be awarded primary custody if can
stay home with the kids and still earn his same income.
I think that the child's needs must have priority not only because it
seems like the most moral thing, but also because the position of the state
should favor the child. After all - both of the adults will be sticking up
for themselves - it falls to the state to stick up for the children.
Merrie
As a footnote I want to note my background: As custodial step-parents
we receive no money from my SSs' BM, and although the formula for the state
of CA would award us some CS - I don't think it would be best to ask/receive
it. The disparity in incomes is considerable, and it's in the best interest
of the kids that BM keep what money she has and spends it on them when they
visit. So in our case, I think it's best that the NCP not pay support
because it is in the best interest of the kids.
Geri and Brian
>parents decision to breastfed an infant?
I guess if both parents were that hugely into the child having breast milk all
the time, a 50/50 could still be accomplished. Breast milk can be frozen for
quite a while, and the mother could send that along when the child is
transported to the dad. She could pump during the time when the child is with
dad, freeze the milk and there would be the supply for dad's custody weeks,
plus mom would not dry up. Most babies do not have trouble transitioning to a
bottle, once they get used to it.
Kim Scheinberg
>>Do you think that the right to 50/50 physical custody overrides the
>>parents decision to breastfed an infant?
>
>the time, a 50/50 could still be accomplished. Breast milk can be frozen for
>quite a while, and the mother could send that along when the child is
>transported to the dad. She could pump during the time when the child is with
>dad, freeze the milk and there would be the supply for dad's custody weeks,
>plus mom would not dry up. Most babies do not have trouble transitioning to a
>bottle, once they get used to it.
Spoken like a woman who has never breastfed. Or pumped, for that matter
You know, Geri, bf'ing isn't strictly about the milk itself -- not for the
child or the mother
Hm. Let me rephrase:
I suspect there are few women who would cut off their right arm just to
have their husband able to lactate. But I'm one of them. And no one wanted
a vacation more than I did three months ago. But despite a pumping
capacity that would embarrass most cows, I knew there was no way I could
simply leave enough milk for a *week* and return still able to breastfeed
Never mind trying to do this every other week on a consistent basis
I'm sure you'll drag out your Pediatric Nurse persona and tell me it's
been done and is possible, blah blah blah. Heck, I'll even *concede* that
it's doable -- I know moms of preemies whose babies never latched and so
they pumped for 2 years and assured their kid breastmilk
But that's not a breastfeeding relationship. Not by a longshot
I'll further beat this horse. In my intact, stable, happy marriage, we
strive for 50-50 co-parenting as much as possible. And we certainly put
our child's needs above all else. And bf'ing has been, at times, the
hardest thing I've ever done. But no way did we even *try* to negotiate a
situation whereby I wouldn't have to nurse my child for a day, never mind
an entire week
-k. who wants step-parents for Max without having to end her marriage
to get them
--
==
Nikki
N
Kim Scheinberg
>> -k. who wants step-parents for Max without having to end her marriage
>> to get them
>Oh can I be one, please, please?!
I seem to recall that you refused when I first asked. Something about
already having a step-kid and another kid on the way and that pesky little
business you run
I guess that was Friday afternoon, while walking between terminals
at SJC, *before* you slept with my son
But sure, just let me know what kind of co-parenting arrangement we can
work out
-k. you'd change your mind right fast if you'd been here for Saturday
night's Ear Infection Insomnia fest
Geri and Brian
>child or the mother
What about the dad?
Kim Scheinberg
>>child or the mother
>
>What about the dad?
My husband quit trying to breastfeed when he discovered that my milk was
just a bit too sweet for his tastes. Now he only does it on request when
I'm engorged, Max is asleep, and I'm too lazy to get out of bed and pump
-k.
Geri and Brian
Or remotely wanted to.
>I'm sure you'll drag out your Pediatric Nurse persona and tell me it's
>been done and is possible, blah blah blah.
Nah - though it probably has. Even though I have taught a lot of moms and a
lot of babys how to get started with the breast feeding routine and how to
pump, next to checking post-delivery peri-areas it was my least favorite part
of post-partum nursing. Breastfeeding is not my area of specialty nor even of
interest, except as for being able to provide technical information to
patients.
Geri and Brian
>just a bit too sweet for his tastes. Now he only does it on request when
>I'm engorged, Max is asleep, and I'm too lazy to get out of bed and pump
I hope that was a joke.
Nikki
love!!!
Rolling over to see him lying there snoring! What a cutie...
Well if I'm going to be stepmum does that mean you and I have to fall out? Or
can we do one of these grown up well-adjusted type relationships?
Better make sure I get at least every other weekend and proper Summer and
Christmas visitation though! Dang don't tell me you want child support as
well?!
Ear infection better yet? They are yucky. My Mom (and therefore a friend of
mine tried it too) used to warm up baby oil in an egg cup on the radiator and
then soak cotton wool in it to put in my ear when I had one of them. I don't
know if it was the placebo effect, or just the warmth or whatever but it
always made me (and my friend's kid) feel much better...
N
Kim Scheinberg wrote:
> Nikki <nikki_...@impactwp.com> writes
>
> >> -k. who wants step-parents for Max without having to end her marriage
> >> to get them
>
> >Oh can I be one, please, please?!
>
> I seem to recall that you refused when I first asked. Something about
> already having a step-kid and another kid on the way and that pesky little
> business you run
>
> I guess that was Friday afternoon, while walking between terminals
> at SJC, *before* you slept with my son
>
> But sure, just let me know what kind of co-parenting arrangement we can
> work out
>
> -k. you'd change your mind right fast if you'd been here for Saturday
> night's Ear Infection Insomnia fest
Didi
>You know, Geri, bf'ing isn't strictly about the milk itself -- not for the
child or the mother
Hmmm.... I am a Pediatric nurse as well... I have breastfed 3 babies and
intend to breastfeed my next (due in June). Do I qualify to have an opinion?
<teasing>
I think, however, in a divorce situation, when there is an active father
involved, then this issue no longer remains what breastfeeding is for the
"mother and the child". I think that in a divorce setting it is wrong to deny
the father the same parental rights simply because the mother has chosen to
breastfeed. That is very unfair -- how does a father compete with that?
In a divorce setting, breastfeeding becomes more of a technical issue than that
of a bonding, nurturing one. I don't see any reason that a BM shouldn't be
able to pump her breasts to send milk with the BF for his parenting time. *If*
breastmilk is the main concern of the parents, then that would be the simplest
way to handle it. Perhaps rather than going a week at a time, the parents
could compromise and split parenting time in shorter spurts -- like 2 - 3 days
on, 2 - 3 days off. etc.
Didi
"A dead thing can go with a stream, only a living thing can go against it."
G.K. Chesterton
Geri and Brian
>involved, then this issue no longer remains what breastfeeding is for the
>"mother and the child". I think that in a divorce setting it is wrong to
>deny
>the father the same parental rights simply because the mother has chosen to
>breastfeed. That is very unfair -- how does a father compete with that?
>
>In a divorce setting, breastfeeding becomes more of a technical issue than
>that
>of a bonding, nurturing one. I don't see any reason that a BM shouldn't be
>able to pump her breasts to send milk with the BF for his parenting time.
>*If*
>breastmilk is the main concern of the parents, then that would be the
>simplest
>way to handle it. Perhaps rather than going a week at a time, the parents
>could compromise and split parenting time in shorter spurts -- like 2 - 3
>days
>on, 2 - 3 days off. etc.
Thank you, Didi - that was exactly my point.
Anne Robotti
is not a given, and not even the norm. There are many breastfeeding women who don't
let down to a pump at all, I was one. I could hand-express five ounces of milk after
pumping dry and getting an ounce. There are babies who won't go back to the breast
after having had a bottle. Not as many as La Leche would have you believe, but nipple
confusion is still a problem for a lot of babies. So even if it *was* all about the
milk, there would be significant reasons not to stop for a week. You've covered all
the rest quite nicely.
The *ideal* in this situation would be to accommodate the 50/50 visitation schedule
in other ways. For example, support six months of exclusive breastfeeding during which
there are no overnight visitations but the father has free access to the child in the
mother's home (in situations of abuse or neglect, the father
should not have unsupervised visitation of a child this young anyway.) After six months,
the introduction of some solids and the father can take the child out with a bottle of
expressed breastmilk for (let's say) four hours at a time, but it can be every day if he
wants and must work around his schedule. (gee, just like real life.) After a year, breast-
feeding at morning and night and the father gets all-day visitation or something. That's
just an idea of a possible schedule. If both parents really have the child's best interest
at heart, and want that more than they want to be jerks to each other, it's workable. Of
course, in that situation anything is and they'd probably still be married.
Anne
Kim Scheinberg wrote:
>
> >I guess if both parents were that hugely into the child having breast milk all
> >the time, a 50/50 could still be accomplished. Breast milk can be frozen for
> >quite a while, and the mother could send that along when the child is
> >transported to the dad. She could pump during the time when the child is with
> >dad, freeze the milk and there would be the supply for dad's custody weeks,
> >plus mom would not dry up. Most babies do not have trouble transitioning to a
> >bottle, once they get used to it.
>
> Spoken like a woman who has never breastfed. Or pumped, for that matter
>
> You know, Geri, bf'ing isn't strictly about the milk itself -- not for the
> child or the mother
>
> Hm. Let me rephrase:
>
> I suspect there are few women who would cut off their right arm just to
> have their husband able to lactate. But I'm one of them. And no one wanted
> a vacation more than I did three months ago. But despite a pumping
> capacity that would embarrass most cows, I knew there was no way I could
> simply leave enough milk for a *week* and return still able to breastfeed
>
> Never mind trying to do this every other week on a consistent basis
>
> I'm sure you'll drag out your Pediatric Nurse persona and tell me it's
> been done and is possible, blah blah blah. Heck, I'll even *concede* that
> it's doable -- I know moms of preemies whose babies never latched and so
> they pumped for 2 years and assured their kid breastmilk
>
> But that's not a breastfeeding relationship. Not by a longshot
>
> I'll further beat this horse. In my intact, stable, happy marriage, we
> strive for 50-50 co-parenting as much as possible. And we certainly put
> our child's needs above all else. And bf'ing has been, at times, the
> hardest thing I've ever done. But no way did we even *try* to negotiate a
> situation whereby I wouldn't have to nurse my child for a day, never mind
> an entire week
>
> -k. who wants step-parents for Max without having to end her marriage
> to get them
Louise Taylor
> this is kim's DH. of *COURSE* that was a joke! it *isn't* too
> sweet, *she's* the one that makes *me* stop, and if i don't do
> it enough i have to listen to 'I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS, I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS"
> all day and night....
LOL...
Some days the lines in here are just priceless! :-)
Thanks, kim's DH.
Louise
Nikki
the kitchen - but that would spoil your fun wouldn't it...?
:-)
n
John Kullmann wrote:
>
> this is kim's DH. of *COURSE* that was a joke! it *isn't* too
> sweet, *she's* the one that makes *me* stop, and if i don't do
> it enough i have to listen to 'I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS, I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS"
> all day and night....
>
> -j 'i only have suction for kim' k
>
> --
> --
> John "JK" Kullmann Take our picture, LIVE!
> j...@panix.com http://www.panix.com/~jzk/
Tracey
writes:
>this is kim's DH. of *COURSE* that was a joke! it *isn't* too
>sweet, *she's* the one that makes *me* stop, and if i don't do
>it enough i have to listen to 'I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS, I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS"
>all day and night....
>
>-j 'i only have suction for kim' k
LOL (and not the polite LOL when something is supposed to be
funny, the *real* one where daughter just came in and said 'What's
so funny, Momma??')
Tracey
Didi
>There are many breastfeeding women who don't let down to a pump at all, I was
one.
I had trouble "letting down" myself. However, nowadays the electric,
industrial pumps that you can rent from any hospital or hospital supply company
virtually eliminate that issue.
>There are babies who won't go back to the breast after having had a bottle.
Not as many as La Leche would have you believe,
but nipple confusion is still a problem for a lot of babies.
Nipple confusion is mostly an issue in the first two months when the baby is
learning "how" to breastfeed -- bottles are far easier than breasts, and babies
who are given a bottle too early will prefer the bottle because it is easier.
After that adjustment period, it becomes a matter of preference, and while a
baby may darn well prefer the breast, if mom isn't there, they will take a
bottle before they will go hungry. I have never heard of a baby who, after
learning how to breastfeed, rejected the breast because they had visitation
with their dad.
>So even if it *was* all about the milk, there would be significant reasons not
to stop for a week.
A week would be a long time to go without nursing, but a couple of days would
be reasonable.
>Of course, in that situation anything is and they'd probably still be married.
The scenario that you described would be nice, but as you stated, if the two
people were that flexible together, they'd probably be married.
I just find it interesting that a woman generally thinks nothing of expressing
her milk for a daycare provider, but when a BF says that they want their given
right to visitation, the argument is, "but you can't keep the baby -- I'm
breastfeeding!"
My ex and I separated shortly after my youngest was born, and we managed to
work it out quite nicely. I nursed, he gave the baby bottles, and it was no
big deal.
Nikki
I was thinking about the breastfeeding thing earlier in terms of visitation as is
the topic of this thread.
I found myself thinking 'i'd like them to find a stepmom or a Dad that was prepared
to let the baby have a nipple to grab onto for a comfort suck!!'
I just remembered seeing Michelle G breastfeeding her son - who's nearly 2 or about
2 I think? If he got upset she just whipped one out and he shut up immediately! At
the time I'm like 'what a tool!' I just had visions of a stepmom doing it and went
'eeeuuuuhhh'
!!
lol
n
Didi wrote:
> <snip lots of breastfeeding stuff>
kevin
relationship and not get in the way of breastfeeding. I mean actual time
at the mother's breast. I separated from BM when BD was about 2 and a
half. She was still breastfeeding at that point at times in the night,
but by the age of three BD was able to spend nights where I was living.
The interim period was not ideal for BD in terms of her relationship with
me (although I saw her almost every day through that time), but it very
soon re-established in a positive way. I don't know what I'd do if it
happened earlier.
kevin
In article <20000321103027...@ng-cu1.aol.com>, posted 21 Mar
2000 15:30:27 GMT, Geri and Brian says...
--
Change the c into a d to make a tree.
Kim Scheinberg
>baby may darn well prefer the breast, if mom isn't there, they will take a
>bottle before they will go hungry. I have never heard of a baby who, after
This is just patently false. I don't want to argue this here, though. Post
this data to my mom's mailing list or any host of other mom's lists and
you'll hear plenty of stories
I know a woman who delayed going back to work until her kid started
solids because the kid simply flat out refused a bottle or a sippy cup.
After three days at daycare when the kid would not touch a bottle, she
extended her maternity leave
>I just find it interesting that a woman generally thinks nothing of expressing
>her milk for a daycare provider, but when a BF says that they want their given
>right to visitation, the argument is, "but you can't keep the baby -- I'm
>breastfeeding!"
It's a bad assumption that [all] women think nothing of leaving milk for
a child at daycare
A lot of women think lots of things about EBM for daycare providers. I'm
the queen of wanting space from my kid and the show-stopper is nursing.
I haven't been away from him for more than six hours since he was born.
And believe me, I'm looking forward to weaning
Go back to Merrie's post. She was talking about what's best for the child.
I think very many people would agree that a split custody situation where
an infant is nursing is not in the child's best interest, particularly in
the case of overnight visitation. I have no problems with Anne's scenario.
In fact, I *like* her scenario. I would love that kind of childcare
arrangement for Max. And I'm sure you and your ex made things work just
fine. But a woman who wouldn't want her child in daycare during those
early months wouldn't be acting out of spite for not wanting the child
away from her with *anyone* -- father included -- during that period
And believe me, I think bf'ing is about the most altruistic thing I've
ever done. I don't do this because I love it. I do it because I firmly
believe that a continuous nursing relationship during the first year is
what's best for my kid. And my pump and I have a very special, tender
relationship, though you have no idea how much time I've spent staring
longingly at cans of formula in supermarkets...
-k. attachment parent wanna-be
Anne Robotti
Didi wrote:
>
> Anne added:
>
> >There are many breastfeeding women who don't let down to a pump at all, I was
> one.
>
> I had trouble "letting down" myself. However, nowadays the electric,
> industrial pumps that you can rent from any hospital or hospital supply company
> virtually eliminate that issue.
No they don't, since that's the one I had. I had a Medela hospital grade pump, and
then the Nurture III. There are just breasts that don't let down to a pump Didi. I'm
glad you didn't have that kind, but I did.
>
> >There are babies who won't go back to the breast after having had a bottle.
> Not as many as La Leche would have you believe,
> but nipple confusion is still a problem for a lot of babies.
>
> Nipple confusion is mostly an issue in the first two months when the baby is
> learning "how" to breastfeed -- bottles are far easier than breasts, and babies
> who are given a bottle too early will prefer the bottle because it is easier.
> After that adjustment period, it becomes a matter of preference, and while a
> baby may darn well prefer the breast, if mom isn't there, they will take a
> bottle before they will go hungry. I have never heard of a baby who, after
> learning how to breastfeed, rejected the breast because they had visitation
> with their dad.
>
> I just find it interesting that a woman generally thinks nothing of expressing
> her milk for a daycare provider, but when a BF says that they want their given
> right to visitation, the argument is, "but you can't keep the baby -- I'm
> breastfeeding!"
>
In the scenario I proposed, a BF would have about as much time with the baby as the
standard day care provider for a nursing child. Unless you know of a day care provider
that keeps the child for several days straight, including overnight.
Anne
Didi
as the standard day care provider for a nursing child. Unless you know of a day
care provider that keeps the child for several days straight, including
overnight.
>
>Anne
I agreed that the scenario that you suggested was the "optimal" one. However,
I don't know too many separated/divorced parents who would be able to put all
of their personal differences aside for that kind of arrangement -- as you
said, if they could be so flexible, they'd probably still be married.
Didi
>This is just patently false. I don't want to argue this here, though. Post
this data to my mom's mailing list or any host of other mom's lists and you'll
hear plenty of stories
Kim, I am a Pediatric nurse as well as a Mom-Baby Home health nurse. I have
worked with many moms -- teaching them how to breastfeed, how to pump, how to
transition for back to work plans, etc. You may not agree with my experiences,
but to say that it is "patently false" is unfair and inaccurate. It may not be
your experience, but it is mine.
>I know a woman who delayed going back to work until her kid started solids
because the kid simply flat out refused a bottle or a sippy cup. After three
days at daycare when the kid would not touch a bottle, she
extended her maternity leave
My SIL runs an in-home daycare, and she had a similar problem with an infant.
However, after trying many things, we were able to figure out that if she fed
him a bottle while he was in the infant seat, then he didn't root for her
breast like he would for his mother's. He has taken bottles of breastmilk for
my SIL ever since. Sometimes it's a matter of creativity, diligence, and
obviously dependent on individual circumstances. In this case, the mother
*had* to go back to work -- she didn't have the luxury of an extended maternity
leave or telling her boss that she couldn't return to work because her child
wouldn't take a bottle.
>It's a bad assumption that [all] women think nothing of leaving milk for a
child at daycare
True, but women who must return to work, and who want their baby to have their
breastmilk, do figure out a way to pump for the baby both before leaving them
at the daycare provider as well as when at work.
>I'm the queen of wanting space from my kid and the show-stopper is nursing. I
haven't been away from him for more than six hours since he was born. And
believe me, I'm looking forward to weaning
It is a good thing that you have the option to continue nursing as long as you
are. My SIL just weaned her son after he turned one year. I look forward to
nursing straight through this baby's first year as I always *had* to return to
work before and couldn't nurse with my breast at all times. Many women can't
be there, and fathers shouldn't be denied proper visitation because they cannot
nurse.
>Go back to Merrie's post. She was talking about what's best for the child.
What's ultimately "best" for the child is 2 parents and the opportunity to
develop a loving, bonding relationship with *both*.
Breastfeeding is not the "only" way to do this.
merrie
Didi <didi...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20000321102216...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
>
> I think, however, in a divorce situation, when there is an active father
> involved, then this issue no longer remains what breastfeeding is for the
> "mother and the child". I think that in a divorce setting it is wrong to
deny
> the father the same parental rights simply because the mother has chosen
to
> breastfeed. That is very unfair -- how does a father compete with that?
>
I believe that fair for the father is secondary to what is best for
the child. I don't think it's right to view custody as a contest in which
the parents compete and the baby is the prize. I think that despite
divorce, parents should strive for the best interest of the child.
It's unfortunate when parents can't agree on how to raise the child,
but to turn it into a contest where you have to be denying physiology
becomes ludicrous. Someone is clearly not thinking of the child.
Merrie
Kim Scheinberg
[Didi said a baby denied a breast will not starve itself. It will take a
bottle when it gets hungry enough. I said that is 'patently false']
>Kim, I am a Pediatric nurse as well as a Mom-Baby Home health nurse. I have
>worked with many moms -- teaching them how to breastfeed, how to pump, how to
>transition for back to work plans, etc. You may not agree with my experiences,
>but to say that it is "patently false" is unfair and inaccurate. It may not be
>your experience, but it is mine.
It's not my experience. My kid loves a good bottle now and again. But I
have been in contact with mothers whose kids gave the impression over the
course of several days that they would sooner starve than drink from a
bottle. I'm sorry if my position was a bit strident
>my SIL ever since. Sometimes it's a matter of creativity, diligence, and
>obviously dependent on individual circumstances. In this case, the mother
>*had* to go back to work -- she didn't have the luxury of an extended maternity
Well, "had to" is a funny expression here. The baby HAS TO eat. The mother
doesn't have to work in the same way that a baby has to eat
>What's ultimately "best" for the child is 2 parents and the opportunity to
>develop a loving, bonding relationship with *both*.
>Breastfeeding is not the "only" way to do this.
Look, right now there are three distinct forces pulling at the members of
my household: What I need. What DH needs. And what Max needs
I need more sleep. I need my hormones to quit being so out of whack so
that sex isn't excrutiatingly painful -- if not for simple pleasure, then
for the sake of us being able to have another kid before I'm collecting
social security. I need uninterrupted chunks of time with my husband so
that we can regroup and pay attention to each other. Oh, and I need to
stop viewing my body as a life-support system for my kid
DH needs most of the same things I do, except sleep is probably more
important to him because he also has this pesky job thing
Max? Well, let's just say his needs are at odds with ours. He's still
nursing more or less on demand. He sleeps in our bed. He's nursed to
sleep, both at bedtime, and during any and all middle-of-the-night
wakings. We've never let him "cry it out" or denied him his mother
His dad, my husband, is an incredibly involved father. He spends plenty of
time alone with Max, playing with him, feeding him, rocking him, reading
to him. He's given Max bottles. He's tried doing some of the night
feedings, but without a lot of success. The fact remains that I am Max's
primary caregiver and source of comfort. For now. That's biology
Now, clearly, in our marriage, we have decided that Max's needs supercede
ours. Often we rethink that decision, but we always end up sticking with
it. It's our parenting philosophy, mutually agreed upon
If I died tomorrow, I'm sure Max would adjust. He'd have to. DH would
switch to formula and eventually Max would learn how to sleep without me
and soon he would look to DH for comfort
But if we divorce? Why, suddenly, would we change the status quo? Surely
we haven't changed our minds about what's best for Max
What bothers me about your position is the idea that somehow, a mother to
an infant that wants to retain primary physical custody while the infant
is still in a high-needs phase is somehow doing so out of spite. Of course
DH and I have options. There's formula. There's Ferberizing. But we don't
exercise them because we want what we think is best for Max. And if we
split, I would expect that any parenting arrangement that is negotiated
during the first two years or so would continue to be based on that. In
fact, I'd hope all our future decisions were based on that. For now, we
defer to biology. And given that that was our history, I would hope that
the court would respect that
This, btw, is similar to Vicki's (I think it's Vicki's) take on the whole
college thing. If it had always been the parents' intent to send their
kids to college, a divorce shouldn't derail that and it should be written
into the orders. If it *wasn't* ever their intent, there's no reason for
either of them to suddenly be on the hook for it now
-k. Merrie's two sentences did such a better job of this
Geri and Brian
>should not have unsupervised visitation of a child this young anyway
That would be presuming it was the father that did the neglecting.
Geri and Brian
>sweet, *she's* the one that makes *me* stop, and if i don't do
>it enough i have to listen to 'I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS, I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS"
>all day and night....
How refreshing to have those touchingly intimate moments shared with us all.
:-)
Lynne Sands
> >this is kim's DH. of *COURSE* that was a joke! it *isn't* too
> >sweet, *she's* the one that makes *me* stop, and if i don't do
> >it enough i have to listen to 'I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS, I HAVE BLUE-BOOBS"
> >all day and night....
>
> How refreshing to have those touchingly intimate moments shared with us
> all.
> :-)
>
> Geri
Geri, it is probably one of those things where you had to have been
there at some point. I can totally relate and find this very, very
funny! Ah, memories!
--
Lynne Sands
LSands11 at yahoo dot com