Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Messages - mistoffolees

>I've been on both sides of this coin, in two separate states.
>I can say and offer my experience, that the courts have much
>more understanding to those receiving child support than to
>those that are paying it.
>Of course, every dime they collect goes towards the states "at
>a boy" award, (and many are matched with a percentage to aid
>in collecting, which directly reflects in higher salaries for
>those handling the money, etc...true story).
>So why not have those really high awards?  IF they collect on
>them, it looks great.  And if they don't??? They can raise the
>flag and say.."oh we have to get this taken care of for the
>children.  We have to collect the monies owed from these dead
>beats...the children are suffering!!!!"

Any evidence that this really happens?

The awards are set by statute in most state. Can you point to awards in excess of the statutory amounts? If not (other than obvious procedural errors), then your argument fails. After all, if your argument were correct, then CSE would ALWAYS try to collect more than the required amount.

>It's a double edged sword.  And every person that goes through
>a divorce where children are involved, and they make the most
>money is GOING to fall on it in our current system.

Hardly. I didn't fall on any sword. You're seeing all the negatives without realizing that the system works in the vast majority of cases.

>The change has to come by getting the courts out of our
>families and by education.

How do you do that? If a parent won't pay, how do you make them pay without courts?

>Does that mean that there aren't people out there supporting
>their children? Absolutely not.  I know people that are
>TOGETHER in an in tact marriage that aren't supporting their
>kids, but see, the courts aren't involved, so who gives a shit
>about those kids? Oh yea, CPS.  LOL...good try but that entity
>is pretty much in place to cover the government's ass.

What does that have to do with anything? CPS is there to deal with harm to the children. The courts are there to define appropriate child support. The two are not related.

>I agree that something has got to give.  If the average SSI
>payments to support a child run on average $624 a month, why
>are child support orders so much higher?  (For those of you
>that don't know, this is a payment made by the government for
>a child that had a parent die before the age of 18).

Perhaps because SSI is meant to provide the minimum amount of support required to keep the kid from starving.

Court ordered child support is intended to allow the child to maintain his/her standard of living. If a parent is making $200 K, why should the child only get the minimum sustenance required to sustain life?

>I have raised four kids. I also took in foster kids (at my own
>expense) and I can tell you, it simply DOES NOT take more than
>$500 a month to raise a child.  (And I am talking a child that
>is NOT in day care without special needs).  We all have to

Not at minimum sustenance levels.

For an upper middle class child, the cost is several times that amount. Heck, my daughter's activities and education alone are 3-4 times that amount. Since she went to a private school when we were married and was active in activities, why should that suddenly end?

>live somewhere and we all have to pay for the power we use,
>the water we use and the food we eat. I live in CA, and I have
>a 12 year son that is still at home. I can tell you, he lives
>well.  And it does not cost thousands of dollars a month to
>raise him.

Sorry, but $500 per month gets the bare necessities and not much more. Heck, I budget $500 per month just for our vacations.

>I don't need the courts to tell me when my son can see his
>Dad. He can see his Dad whenever his Dad wants to see him. I
>also don't need the court to tell me when to contact Dad.  I
>got educated a very long time ago, on what is best for my
>children.  And having two parents that can get along, remove
>the money issues, *is* the way to do it.  Does that mean that
>everyone has to be in a big group hug? Absolutely not. But
>what that does mean is that each parent has to LOVE the child
>more than they hate each other.  And that only comes with
>maturity, education and thoughtfulness.  Courts do not promote
>that..if anything they strip families of that.

Unfortunately, most of us live in the real world. If the court did not order visitation, a lot of parents would NEVER see their kids.

>But there is no money coming in if everyone learns how to do
>that, so why would they?

Why don't you suggest how you're going to make that happen without courts? How are you going to get parents to agree on custody and visitation - and then live up to their agreement - 100% of the time?

In the real world, parents don't agree - and the courts apply standards set forth by the legislature. Advocating the elmination of court involvement in divorce and custody is a pipe dream.
>Do you pay or are you paid?

I pay - a great deal - even though I have 50% physical custody.

>If all CS was guaranteed to go directly to the child's needs,
>I'd agree with you.  But, since there is no requirement for
>the recipient to account for how they spend it, well....

There's no legal requirement for a married person to account for how they spend money, either. Or for an unmarried parent. Expecting someone to mandate how money is spent is silly.

If it comes down to quibbling over how a particular dollar is spent, you're missing the point. The CP provides a home - how much does that cost? He/She provides transportation. Cooking. Cleaning. And much more. Many of the people who complain about how the money is spent are looking at only the most trivial surface items ("I spend $500 per month on child support and she only buys $100 worth of clothes at the most"). When you look at the cost of raising a child, the child support in most cases is used on raising the child.

>It's hard to say it's okay when the kids DON'T benefit from CS
>paid by their NCP, isn't it?

If you have evidence that this is a common problem, feel free to present it. And please provide REAL evidence, not just anecdotal whining. And then feel free to propose a solution which eliminates the problem.

Bottom line is that the couple got divorced. They're not going to agree on how every penny is spent. The normal solution is for the custodial parent to have primary responsiblity for determining how the money is spent.

If you object to that, you can stay married, or you can demand wording in your court order that specifies how the money is spent (this can be done) or you can demand wording in the court order that the NCP pays certain expenses directly (this can also be done).

Complaining that the system is flawed because some people are bad parents just doesn't make sense. There is no perfect solution, but the system works pretty well on the whole.
>Child support is simply another form of slavery:  involuntary
>servitude. Which goes against the 13th Amendment to US

Wrong. Thanks for playing.
And, yet, you are incapable of stating your position in clear English. All you've done so far is try to discredit the system and claim that it's inherently unfair and that the Supreme Court agrees with you.

Why is it that it's so hard for you to state your position in clear English?

Anyone talking your advice and trying to work outside the system (or tell a judge that he/she doesn't have the right to set child support, for example) is going to get burned. Big time.
>why don't you end the discussion? It is really silly to keep
>on going like this.
>Sometimes I read posts that go on and on like this and I can
>see how difficult the communication must be between the
>posters and their ex's.
>Just walk away. It really isn't a discussion that is helpful.
>Just my opinion.

It would be helpful if Leon would state specifically what his position is so that it can be discussed.

Instead, he makes wild statements about how the system is entirely unconstitutional and unfair to men.

I generally speak up when he starts making statements which could lead someone into making a major mistake - such as questioning the authority of local courts to set alimony or similar statements. I would speak up just as quickly on another board if someone were making the discredited statement that income tax is illegal and you don't have to pay the IRS.

There is a real danger here that people will take bad advice and get themselves into serious trouble. His posts lead in that direction, so I challenge them.
>What the heck are you babbling about, that was not the
>discussion here.

That's why I've asked you repeatedly to state your argument in plain English. So far, you've done nothing but blind attacks on the current system with bogus arguments about how the Supreme Court has ruled that the current system is wrong, but you've never stated exactly what you're saying. Neither have you stated what you propose to fix the 'problem', but that's too much to ask.

>At least though you finainly admit "MAN" is the one paying, so
>discrimitory actions torwards a the opposit gender , ie. man
>is youre preference.

Care to try that in English?

If it says what I THINK it says, you couldn't be more wrong. Generally, the person with higher income pays support - regardless of gender. I think you'll find pleny of women paying support if you bother to open your eyes.
Nice try.

I'll ask one more time. In simple English, what is your point? You keep arguing that the state courts have no jurisdiction, then you switch to other bogus arguments.

Please spell out your exact argument without any mumbo-jumbol

Not that it matters - the courts consistently uphold the right of state courts to require a man to pay child support - even if he leaves the state. None of your hand-waving changes that.
Really? The US Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional to force NCPs to pay support?

When did that happen?
>That wasn't the discussion here now was it!!
>The issue was the prime directive behind it, and rather or not
>the ruleings were convoluted with disrimination torwards men.
>Now you want to deny or try to decry the Cooperqative
>agreements, and yet you dont deny the fact they exist, so the
>only proper conclusion drawn is you dont want to know about
>them, or you another individual determined to keep them
>covered up, even though they exist in the real world and exist
>in case law.
>And once again you go off into a tangent to avoid the facts.

No, the only conclusion is that you're pretending that your interpretation of the laws is more valid than the interpretation regularly used by many thousands of judges throughout the US.

THAT is the real world.
And, yet, courts across the country continue to order child support - and the principle of child support has not been overturned either by appeals courts or the Supreme Court.

Whether you like it or not, child support paid by the NCP is the practice throughout the US.