S.P.A.R.C.

Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: want all answers possible  (Read 13909 times)

Genie

  • Private Reserve
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1257
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
Ok...
« Reply #50 on: Mar 19, 2006, 08:31:16 PM »
you still didn't answer the question as to how to make it work without order of CS for both parents to support their children.  

You can debate the law and what is constitutional or not and what the gov't should tell the courts or not but it doesn't resolve the issue at hand.

If you don't think the current system is right, what do you think would be better?


leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Ok...
« Reply #51 on: Mar 19, 2006, 10:13:34 PM »
The answer lies within the people themselves, not goverment entities.
I did answer there is no quick or easy solution, however to legislate a solution creates only more problems, and to make it beneficial to entities to seperate families more, to split custody between the two unequal resolves nothing.
The people were and are, if we still have a common law bound to support there own to the best of there abilities w/ out enterference from third parties and entities w/ pecuinary enterests. I never said the answer was simple, but it lies elswhere than what we have now.
The issue at hand, is a result of they before mentioned facts that put us where we are at now, that in it self should make every one worry to think we have been denaturalized for the goverment to acheive it. I for obvious reasons cannot put everything in here, for soon it shall be tried in the proper court, under the proper venue, but the importance is to try to broaden the thoughts and minds of the people to see what has realy happened, what you are told and what is legislated is not even half of wht realy happens, and these are what kills the importance or the thought of how beneficual the program realy is.
But like i've said this is only the opinion of a minority of the people.

POC

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 190
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: My answers:....
« Reply #52 on: Mar 20, 2006, 07:52:07 AM »
I'm not sure if I've ever heard that CS should not be ordered, unless people were talking about situations where time sharing is 50/50 and incomes are equal. Bottom line - children have needs (at minimum food, shelter, clothing, and transportation), regardless of which parent they happen to be with at any given time. Generally, the argument is that CP's don't want to share any $$$ responsibility for their child when they are at the NCP home. You are right, if there is no order to do so, then parents won't do it. Unfortunately, CP's have been allowed to get away with that.

If children are provided for at both homes rather than just one, then that is more support, not less. That may result in less money being exchanged between parents. Unfortunately, too many people think less money changing hands means less support is being provided. That is why the legalities are constantly discussed.

gidgetgirl

  • Private Reserve
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1989
  • Karma: 214
    • View Profile
Minor quibble with your #3
« Reply #53 on: Mar 20, 2006, 12:19:34 PM »
Social Security provides funds to minor children whose parent is deceased or deemed disabled.  I know I would have far more $$$ if XH were to die or be deemed disabled by SSA than is received in child support.

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Minor quibble with your #3
« Reply #54 on: Mar 20, 2006, 03:56:27 PM »
hate to dissapoint you but you should read the regulations under 42, 45 CFR's and chapter 7 Social Security, and then go read some cases through Westlaw, you will find out to often that is not the case, ( read the supreme court of the united states cases)and in many case the moneis that is transferable from one person to another in death is not much at all, if it is even allowed. Military is an exception, only because they voluntarily sign up for service, but that has a whole different list of complications.


gidgetgirl

  • Private Reserve
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1989
  • Karma: 214
    • View Profile
I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
« Reply #55 on: Mar 20, 2006, 04:58:38 PM »
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10084.html

http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/fed_prog/socsecbf/socsecbf.html
(Excerpt)"The average monthly payment for a family consisting of a widow(er) with two children is $1,696 per month. Social Security payments increase based on the annual cost-of-living index-- something few private insurance plans offer. "
"Today, Social Security pays monthly survivors benefits to about 7 million Americans, almost 2 million of whom are children. "

"Under Social Security, workers are considered disabled if they cannot do work they did before and we decide that they cannot adjust to other work because of their medical condition(s). The disability must be expected to last for at least 12 months or to result in death. Once benefits begin, they continue for as long as the worker is disabled and can't work. The disabled worker and his or her eligible family members receive checks each month. "

Granted, getting diability benefits from SSA can be a challenge, but I just wanted to point out that these benefits DO exist, which the original poster seemed to not be aware of.

wysiwyg

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 323
  • Karma: -2
    • View Profile
RE: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
« Reply #56 on: Mar 20, 2006, 05:50:13 PM »
no I am aware of it - and fully aware that this is one reason that our generation will not see an SS - becasue it was originally devised as old age survivor benefits.  It was "modified" over the years to include things that I personally do not agree with, as a child who loses a parent is not old in age.  

I did not ask my ex to provide ANY support for the three kids, the judge did not order a dime for any of the three kids, and I supported them with finacial adjustments for a long time until I remarried and my husband adopted them.  We survived without SS, without CS without the help of any agency whatsoever, I worked three jobs to support my children.

Proud Military mom of 1 Sgt Army Daugher, I Navy son, 1 Stepson, and 1 ambitious AF daughter.

oklahoma

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 141
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: My answers:....
« Reply #57 on: Mar 21, 2006, 04:34:26 PM »
"Many wouldn't give a dime if not "forced" to. Heck, many don't even when "forced" to."

I have issue with these statements.  First of all, statistics show that the majority of NCP's who do not pay CS simply cannot afford the over-high amounts ordered by the courts.  Also, I think the majority of NCPs would pay child support without being forced.  There are always going to be parents who don't care; they are in the minority, but the system is set up to guard against that minority and in return the majority are hurt by it.  My husband, when he had his own very successful business, was always current on CS, and often paid for extras for his daughters (bought the clothes, bedroom furniture, etc. etc.)  He willingly did it without the state telling him to pay more because he made more.  And I believe he is the norm.  I do think NCP's would willing "fork over" 1/2 the expenses if they had a say in what the expenses were.  And when the NCP can't afford to shop at the Gap, those expenses do not include clothes from the Gap.

If it's all just about taking care of the kids, as you state, why not let the kids stay with the parent who makes the most money, forget the "redistribution of wealth" altogether?  (Now we KNOW that idea won't go far!!  And really it shouldn't.)

The argument over the constitutionality of CS, and the involvement of government agencies is quite valid, because those agencies have created an atmosphere that severely restricts one parent from making choices in regards to their child's well-being--parents who would love to be on the other side, with the children in their home, whether or not they receive a check from the ex.

Genie

  • Private Reserve
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1257
  • Karma: 4
    • View Profile
I wasn't talking about the good fathers here...
« Reply #58 on: Mar 21, 2006, 09:47:15 PM »
I'm talking about the ones who don't care about the well being of their children.  And there are more out there than the minority.  They don't come to boards like this b/c they know the good NCPs will ream them a new one.

There are alot of NCPs who don't pay their CS.  Mine in particular. But I am lucky enough to make good enough money that it doesn't matter.  Someday I may go after him but right now I don't give it another thought.  I know many have to pay large amounts that aren't fair. I stated that.  However, I feel that my X's amount is fair.  It won't break him like the large amounts have broke others.  

The ones I am talking about in my statements are the ones who refuse to work so they don't have to pay or get cash jobs to avoid paying or garnishment or quit their job whenever the garnishment comes.  And because of this many CPs struggle to support their children when the small amount (and it usually is small b/c the NCP doesn't make much an hr b/c the NCP doesn't keep jobs long enough to make decent money) they are supposed to get would help out alot.

And not all NCPs who don't pay and avoid are men. Many are also women and they fall in the same boat as those I am talking about here.

I have been on both sides of the fence. When I was married to X I helped pay that CS for the SKs and didn't have a problem with it. I wrote the check most of the time. And I felt his CS was fair. It wasn't a huge amount, it was $80 a week. And I helped pay 1/2 the day care and feed them when at my house every other weekend. Too bad X didn't feel he needed to continue doing that. And b/c of it he owes his first X over $10K and still avoids paying her. And he owes me too.  It isn't worth going after him b/c he doesn't care. He will spend his time in jail only to get out and do it again. He has done it before.

Nothing I say here is towards any of those who are good parents and who struggle to pay and be with their children. I never pointed to anyone here in my statements.

leon clugston

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 155
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
RE: I'm referencing survivor's benefits...
« Reply #59 on: Mar 22, 2006, 12:35:42 AM »
Ime aware of a lot more, than that, and spend a great deal of time reading the social security and the regulations, however, at this particular time I will not disclose all knowledge for personal reasons.
Created rights are not vested rights, therefor the right is mere interpretation holding no validity.

 

Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.