Messages

Sorry, this was not really aimed at anybody.  Just wanted to put my opinion into the thread and hit reply after the last message.

I would like to look at this subject from a different angle.

1. Does an adult child have a right compell their parents to pay for anything for them?

What if they were not interested in going to college, but instead wanted to explore a new business venture. Would they have the right to compel their parents to provide the capital needed to start that business? I think that this concept opens a can of worms that most would not be willing to delve into.

2.  Why should the "adult children" of divorced parents be given special rights that the children of intact families are not entitled to?

If the adult in question were coming from an intact family, would they have a right to compel their parents to pay for college for them? Why should Billy be entitled to force his parents to send him to college, while Bobby can not? Does the act of divorce create a special class of citizen just by its act? Should a person be entitled to special rights just because they had the unfortunate circumstance of being the child of parents that could not stay together?

I think the wrong question is being asked. It should not be, "Can I compel the other parent to pay for college?"  But rather, why is the other parent not willing to do so?  Is it continuing a financial burnden that has been in place for years as the child grows up. Is it a philisophical reason....I.E. the parent feels it is important for the child to "earn his or her own way the world"?

As a parent that would do what ever I could for my children (and no they are not college age yet) I see this from a different stand point. As I struggle to provide for my children, I have very little left over to put aside for college for them. Their mother lives on a very limited income (her choice - I am the custodial parent and I pay her child support - CA go figure) so I doubt there is much being set aside on that side. So when my kids get to be college age, they will have to find funding on their own....just like most college age children. If my two boys want to go to college, I will do everything I can to assist...but they will have to look for scholarships, they will have to get part time work and take out student loans....just like their parents did!!!

To the OP, if your child needs money for books...he or she will need to do what most college students do...GO OUT AND GET A JOB!  It might mean they can only go to school part time, but they will get the benefit of continuing their education, both in a classroom environment, and in the real world.

First of, let me state that I agree. The case worker should not be the first step in determining what is a valid expense or what is not. That first step should be the parent that is being asked to pony up for the expense. If the other parent has not problem with sharing in the expense then there is not an issue. If the other parent does have a problem...then the case worker should become involved.

Secondly, I dont know your situation. But would like to share what came to mind when I was reading your posts. Was there a medical necessity to take your child to the "conference". Was there a medical or thereputic (sp) benefit from the child being there? If it were necessary, did the other parent also attend? And if not, why? Are you asking for reimbursement for the entire trip, or just half of what it cost to take your child. If the other parent went to a conference (with or with out the child) would you be willing to pay?

Also was the trip to the zoo medically necessary? If not, it was a pleasure trip for you and your child. Do you ask the other parent for reimbursement for going to the zoo in your own home town? You decided to make that trip and should incure all expenses associated with it.  

Mstoffolees,

Thank you for your concern. I do have a very good lawyer, and no, I am not considering stopping my support payments. The mony is not a great deal (though I could afford a new car if I did ot have to pay her), and I know my kids time with their mother would be greatly effected if I was not giving her the money.  And to me...that is the bottom line. In this case it is about making their live a bit better when they are with their mother.

Leon,

I appreciate your zeal, but brother you are beating a dead horse.  Until somebody goes after the system using the R.I.C.O. stuff, nothing will change. And since judges are not held accountable in this arena they have no fear.  As long as the states get money from the Feds they will do what ever they can to maximize the amount of money flowing thru the entire system.

As far as I am concerned...Do I like paying? No!  But I am one of those dads I mentioned earlier, I will pay to keep my kids. That is what is important to me. If it means I have to drive a 15 yr old truck, so be it!

Ok, we have a discussion going.  But, to be honest I was not interested in discussing whether or not the courts have a right to hear/adjudicate these matters.  They are doing so, they will, blah blah blah.  I wanted to talk about how we that pay child support (and I dont want to hear about it is my responsibility, I am the CP and I pay the NCP support..CA courts. My ex is a flake that does not work. If I dont pay something the kids will not get to eat when they visit with her) are told that the two issues are not linked. How it only seems to be linked one way.  One parent withholds contact with the child(ren), the other gets back by withholding child support...and then can go to jail.  The one parent does not pay child support, the other parent withholds contact with the children...parent paying support can still go to jail...  Nope their not linked....unless you are paying support.  Hmmm, I wonder what would happend if I refused to allow visitation and refused to pay child support?

:)

This was posted more as a rhetorical thing than anything else.  I wanted to point out the linkage between the NCP getting visitation contingent upon his staying current in his child support.  (Note the original post, this was a mom that has custody and a dad that has visitation).

My whole premise was, "How many times have we heard that child support and visitation are two seperate matters!"  The fact that this verbage made it into a settlement surprised me.  If a judge let this slip by, then it shows the above statement is a crock!  The agreement seems to indicate that it is the money that is important (to the CP) not the continuing involvement of a father in his child's lives.  I don't think I have every heard a women say, "I would be willing to give up the child support, if only their father would spend more/quality time with them". Yet, I have known fathers to throw obscene amounts of money at an uncooperative mother to try to get just a little bit more time with their kids.

sdbleve

Hi all,

I saw the following on Soc's board. I started typing a response there, but did not feel it was appropriate to do so, so I started a new thread here.

#12764, "Custody & Visitation"


           Final Decree entered in NC
NCP resides in NC
CP resides in AL

Seperation agreement drawn up by attorney & incorporated as final divorce decree.

I am the "wife". I moved with kids from NC to AL in Sept.

Custody

"The wife shall retain custody and control over the minor children. The parent retaining custody shall be referred to herein as the Custodial Parent. The parent referred to as the Non-Custodial Parent. The Custodial Parent agrees to consult with the Non-Custodial Parent on such matters as major medical treatments and the selection of schools for the children to promote the best interests of the children. The Custodial Parent shall exercise final determination of these matters."


Visitation

"The Non-Custodial Parent shall have the right to visit the children contingent upon him being current on the hereinafter required child support payments at all reasonable times and places. Proper advance arrangements shall be made by the Non-Custodial parent with the respect to the exercise of these visitation rights"

Ex-H has history of anger issues. DSS also investigated him for neglect since older daughter began self mutilating while visiting him. She was in counseling at the time & is still in couseling with major anxiety issues revolving around BD. Civilian DSS recommended anger management & parenting classes, however he's military & they protect their own, so they said the allegations were unfounded.


1. Do I have full sole & legal custody?

2. If I (along with counselor) feel that the visits are going to be detrimental to older daughter's well being, can I prevent visitation?

3. Can I also keep younger daughter (4) from going if older daughter (9) isn't going?

Thanks!

 
Ok, I copied the entire post as I dont want to be accused of leaving anything out. I am looking at the fist bit under Visitation.



So much for the idea that Child Support and Visitation are two seperate issues. According to this, the CP has the right to interfere with the NCP's time with his/her child if their support payments are not not current. I wonder if a judge would ever sign off on a statement that the NCP has a right to stop child support payments if the CP interferes with the NCP's time with his/her children.  HMMMMM!!!!

Maybe some such arrangement would help to reduce the games that some CP's play.

sdbleve

Timtow,

Some of you previous post have made you sound, well a bit pretentious.

This post has been more down to earth. Thank you for clarifying some things. It does sound like you have the best interests of you child at heart and not necessarily at the expense of you ex.  There are some concepts and decisions that some of us will not agree with, but that is all about personal beliefs.

As a father that has done everthing I can to assure that both parents are involved in my childrens life, I can appreciate the efforts it sounds like you are making. Just remember, it is not about the money, it is about the childrens happiness. And that has no fiscal value.

You have mentioned several times it takes X number of dollars to raise a child. That is not true. There is no way to determine a dollar value for raising a successful child. Ask people that have been raised in low income or imigrant families, that have gone on to be successful in business, medicine, and many other areas. Or, inversely, those that have come from very wealthy families and are now spending time in jail. Money is not the factor that decides success. Personal ambition, drive and responsibility are what decides success in life.

>Yeah, that's probably how it'll go.  I'd prefer that we
>figure it up and do it legal, though, because otherwise I have
>no guarantee he'll pay.  He might say that, say, music lessons
>are a great idea, pay for the first month, and then stand
>there turning his pockets inside out (he's got disability
>income of -- well, let's just say the amount that the
>insurance co. pays into his retirement account alone is more
>than he'll be paying in c/s monthly, and if he's off
>disability he's capable of making big bucks, just wants to
>switch to a low-pay career and go to school).  Then I'm there
>stuck either telling the kid "no more music lessons", with the
>lesson attached that there's no point working at something
>because it's just going to get yanked, or paying for the whole
>thing myself.
>
>I'll have primary care.  Liberal visitation.  
>
>

Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I am just trying understand.

First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me. It implies that a parent is a "visitor" in their child's life. No parent should be a vistor, they are a parent with all the rights and responsibilities that go with that title. Why will you and your ex not share custody of your child. Custody should be 50-50 unless there are specific reason why it could not be. (Primarily the safety of the child).

And what exactally is "Liberal" visitation? Who decides what is liberal? You? What is to keep you from enrolling your child in all sorts of activities (that you feel are important) and then these activities interfering with your  ex's ability to spend time with his child. Read the other post on these boards, it happens all the time. And while it might not be done purposefully, (there are those parents that involve their children in so many activities the kid's head's are left spinning) it  interferes with the other parents ability to spend quality time with their children. I have a co-worker that experiences this. When he finally gets a chance to spend time with his kids, they are so exhausted from all the activities their mother has them doing, they only want to unwind, or spend time with their friends in an unstructured enviroment. Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not emotionally.

Now on to the comment about your ex's disability income. You specifically mention that the amount his insurance pays into his retirement account is more than what he would be paying in child support.

1. Is that the guideline support, or the amount you are looking for?

2. Why would you even mention this? you already said in a previous post that you think that putting money away in retirement is an appropriate use of funds as it prevents the children from having to take care of us when we get older. So are we to assume by your posts that it is only important when it is your retirement account that is being funded?

Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been reduced. It sounds like you are capable of (and are) earning a good wage.  If you both had 50/50 custody of your child (as it should be) then you can pay him support......

And to qualify my position....That is exactally my position. I am the custodial parent, time split on paper is 54-46, (though thru choices their mother has made, the children are with me more than that). I am the high earner, and I pay her child and spousal support. Am I happy about it? NO! But even though the time split has now evolved into more like 70-30 I still pay "what the court ordered". (Even though now, she would most likely have to pay me) Why, because I see it is what is in the best interest of my children. She would not be capable of paying me support, and with out the money I give her, my children would be the ones that would have to do with out. And I try to never schedule things on their mothers "custody time" even when I know it is something they would like to do. I suggest they tell their mother about it. If she thinks it is a good idea, then they get to go. If their mother can't afford to pay for it, I make arrangements to do so....even though it often means that I go with out.

>And yes, retirement saving is also part of providing for
>children.  If we don't do it, they'll have to pick up our
>slack.  Which is a lot more money and responsibility, for a
>lot longer, than it was for previous generations.
>
>Yow -- at least I know the ex isn't thinking that way about
>it.  He doesn't fear I'm going to spend her money on me.

So maybe the solution is to "structure" the child support so your ex is paying the state guidelines. Then when you both agree that something is needed for your child (something outside the day to day needs) , you can make those arrangements together. Then you can split the costs down the middle. And, when you can't agree, and your daughter is with you, you can be responsible for incuring those costs. When she is with your ex, and he wants to do something for her or with her, and you do not agree, he can incure the cost.  That way you both feel like you are equally involved and equally responsible.

I am assuming you have 50/50 custody, and work together to make decision regarding your child.