Messages

If it were me I would explain to the Ex that child support is calculated based on income and doesn't consider expenses, and according to your attorney's calculations child support would likely decrease if she pursued a child support modification.  I would also tell her that you have no desire to reduce child support at this time so you have no intention of initiating a child support modification.  However, if she feels the need to pursue a child support modification, then she would need to initiate it, and that you will gladly pay whatever the new and more correct child supprt amount is, even if it is a reduction.  That will place the ball in her court.  I suspect that she would probably do nothing since that would give her less to complain about, and by doing nothing she can continue to feel like a victim.  JMHO

"I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to
comment on.

Where? The only system I've seen suggested is the idea that there should be no enforcement."


Read the last paragraph of my original post on this thread.

What's even worse is that most state's child support guidelines are even older than that, and have no direct relationship to the actual expenses of raising a child.  

"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to back their claim that the entire system needs to be discarded."

That is a bold faced lie!

I have provided you with state statutes which is more authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution of wealth.  

All your study shows is that 89% of the time that redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to prove that the system works to ensure that children will be supported.

I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was set up to accomplish?


I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to comment on.  

but sorry you missed the boat again.


Your so called study merely proves that child support is paid 89% of the time.  Payment is no indication that the current systems is working correctly or effectively.  Your study does nothing to prove that the child support paid is directly related to the actual costs of supporting a child.  Your study also doesn't prove that the child support paid is actually spent on the support of the child.  

All you have done is prove my point that child support is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  The current system is flawed at it's very core.

A system that truly worked would have checks and balances to ensure the amounts paid bore a direct relationship to actual expenses, and a requirement that the amounts paid are to be spent on the child's direct expenses.  Accountability would also be required.  This assumes that the true intention of the systems is to ensure that the child will be supported rather than to merely line the pockets of one parent.  

"I'm still waiting for you to:
1. Provide evidence that the system fails to do its job in a significant number of cases.
2. Provide a recommendation of what you consider to be a better system.
3. Provide in clear English a statement of your position."


If he did provide this information to you, you probably would simply ignore it.  I have intelligently responded to you with all of the information that you have requested, and yet you have failed to provided any intelligent argument to refute anything that I have said.  You have also refused to provide any laws or guidelines to support your position.  Your entire position is a baseless joke until you do so.

Like I said before people with nothing to hide will hide nothing.  I think it's pretty clear what you are trying to hide by refusing to submit child support laws and guidelines that ensure that the financial needs of the children will be met.  Heck you haven't even made any type of inteligent attempt to refute anything that I have said.  You can keep talking out your ass if you choose to, but I doubt anyone here is taking you seriously.  

I've wasted enough of my time presenting an inteligent response to your baseless rantings.  So for now I am done until you post something of substance to support your opinions.  

You asked for evidence to support my position so I submit to you Connecticut statute section 46b-84 which imposes an obligation to pay child support, but contains no requirement that the child support paid be spent on providing for the child's direct expenses.  In addition, the Connecticut statute does not require an accounting of how child support is spent.  Furthermore, the Connecticut child support guidelines uses an income shares model to calculate the child support obligation which completely ignores the actual direct costs of supporting a child.  This means that there is absolutley no relationship between the child support obligation and the actual costs of supporting a child.  The child support guidelines do nothing to ensure that the child will be supported.  An analysis of every other state's laws and guidelines will most likely have the same results.  This is irrefutable proof to support my position that the current child support laws and system does not ensure that the children will be financially supported.  

So far you have not provided any evidence or intelligent argument to refute my positions.  Simply repeating your baseless opinion will do nothing to validate it.  Also, ignoring my positions and hoping they go away will do nothing to support your own baseless opinion.  Unless you can come up with child support laws and guidelines to invalidate my positions, it is checkmate, you lose.

My proof is in every child support statute and guidlines out there.  How about providing proof of your unsubstantiated opinions.  

How about providing some state statutes or child support guidelines which ensure that the receiver of child support will spend it on the direct expenses of financially support the child.  Also, please provide child support guidelines which have a direct relationship to the actual direct expenses of financially supporting a child.

The true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that children are financially supported, and everything to do with "the money".  

If the true nature and purpose of child support was to ensure the support of the children, then the child support laws would require the receiver of child support to spend the child support on the children's direct needs.  The laws would also require the receiver of child support to account for how the child support is spent.  The current laws and system require nether.  In fact the current laws and system are structured so that the child support received becomes that person's sole property and can be spent on anything they choose to spend it on.  They are not required to spend one cent on their children.  In fact the children don't even have a legal right or claim to the money.  Again the true nature of child support has nothing to do with ensuring that the children are financially supported.  In truth what we call child support is merely a redistribution of wealth form one parent to the other.  As a result the current child support laws and system is flawed at its very core, and doesn't work.

Also, in most states the child support guidelines are not even based on current economic principles or data directly related to what it actually costs to support a child in a divorced family.  In fact, the typical child support guidelines is based solely on income and completely ignores expenses.  Accordingly, the child support awards have no relationship to the actual economic costs of financially supporting a child.  As a result, the underlying child support awards are also flawed and do nothing to ensure the financial support of the child.  Again, it is merely about the money and transferring wealth.  

I also find it interesting that whenever the topic of accountability of how child support is spent comes up, that typically the people who receive minor amounts of child have no problem with accountability.  However, the vast majority of people who receive large amounts of child support would never agree to accounting for how it is spent.  One of my core beliefs is that people with nothing to hide, will hide nothing.  So I wonder, what are these people trying to hide by not agreeing to a system of accountability?  Could it be that the truth would come out that the child support received isn't being used on the child's direct financial needs?  Or that the child support awards are excessive?

Personally I would like the current laws and system scrapped and a new systems adopted.  I would love to see a new system premised on both parents financially supporting their children.  I would like to see an escrow type account set up where both parents would pay into it, and both parents can withdraw from it to pay for the direct expenses of the child.  There would be detailed regulations/guidelines which would clearly list the expenses that qualify, and expenses that don't qualify for reimbursement out of the account.  I personally think that this would be a much better system