Dude, I don't know who you're talking to here, but if it's me, take a deep breath and reread the posts. I think you'll feel a lot better afterwards. Ftr, I am not the one who filed. And I'm not financially dependent on my x, who's in our daughter's life daily. I don't know who you're angry at, but I think you got the wrong number here.
- Welcome to SPARC Forums.
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.
#12
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 18, 2006, 08:46:01 PM
Well, you're making a number of assumptions, there.
Re money solving money issues. See my remark about my father helping us as my husband left work, before we had word on the disability insurance. Money most certainly solved a money issue there. Illness cannot generally be defined as "a poor financial choice"; choice is frequently not involved.
Re redistribution of wealth: Yes, I understand how this works. It only works, though, if you're playing zero-sum. The idea is net gain for the child, in the form of services, college savings, etc., with me contributing exactly as before, not less than before thanks to increased c/s. And frankly I'd find the intimation that I'd slack off kind of insulting, if it hadn't made me smile. (A little sadly, because I understand there are people who would do that.) I'm standing here in 15-year-old clothes, I've had access to his money throughout the marriage, and he's not too savvy financially. If I'd wanted to rape him for money so I could live it up, I think I'd have done it a while ago. Luckily he's not worried about that one either. Something about that ethical sense again.
Re x's involvement in decisions on spending the money, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm trying to cut him out or sock him with bills. Afaik there isn't much in her life we don't discuss, and where he's absent, it's because he's said he wants to leave it to me. I don't sign her up for anything without seeing what he thinks, because we're talking about her education, and he's her father. My proposed c/s budget is about splitting her likely costs right down the middle. All of them, including insurance, childcare, housing above what we'd spend on ourselves, etc. We both made her, and it seems to me we're equally responsible. In fact I've asked him to go through the kid-expenses budget and decide explicitly which things he wants to and doesn't want to pay for if his c/s offer won't meet the total.
My x's lifestyle is more likely to be determined by the state of his health than by the state of his wallet, unfortunately, and I understand that's not necessarily the norm. If money could fix that one, it'd be well worth it. He's already got the best treatment/services he's willing to bother with, though, and excellent health insurance.
Personally I think there ought to be pretty good equity across the households, and I've been pushing for more equity for some time. It's ridiculous for him to have this teeny lousy place while we're living in a house. Modest house, granted, but clean, quiet, nice, has yard, nice neighbors, good roof. But he isn't able to take care of a house, not for the foreseeable future. A 2-br apt is a stretch. It's one of the reasons he's willing to have her stay with me.
Gotta run. Btw, the lobbying has motive forces, too, and interestingly enough they're not just bucks. I used to work for the US House of Reps, seen it in action. And thanks for the level & thoughtful responses.
Re money solving money issues. See my remark about my father helping us as my husband left work, before we had word on the disability insurance. Money most certainly solved a money issue there. Illness cannot generally be defined as "a poor financial choice"; choice is frequently not involved.
Re redistribution of wealth: Yes, I understand how this works. It only works, though, if you're playing zero-sum. The idea is net gain for the child, in the form of services, college savings, etc., with me contributing exactly as before, not less than before thanks to increased c/s. And frankly I'd find the intimation that I'd slack off kind of insulting, if it hadn't made me smile. (A little sadly, because I understand there are people who would do that.) I'm standing here in 15-year-old clothes, I've had access to his money throughout the marriage, and he's not too savvy financially. If I'd wanted to rape him for money so I could live it up, I think I'd have done it a while ago. Luckily he's not worried about that one either. Something about that ethical sense again.
Re x's involvement in decisions on spending the money, I'm not sure where you get the idea that I'm trying to cut him out or sock him with bills. Afaik there isn't much in her life we don't discuss, and where he's absent, it's because he's said he wants to leave it to me. I don't sign her up for anything without seeing what he thinks, because we're talking about her education, and he's her father. My proposed c/s budget is about splitting her likely costs right down the middle. All of them, including insurance, childcare, housing above what we'd spend on ourselves, etc. We both made her, and it seems to me we're equally responsible. In fact I've asked him to go through the kid-expenses budget and decide explicitly which things he wants to and doesn't want to pay for if his c/s offer won't meet the total.
My x's lifestyle is more likely to be determined by the state of his health than by the state of his wallet, unfortunately, and I understand that's not necessarily the norm. If money could fix that one, it'd be well worth it. He's already got the best treatment/services he's willing to bother with, though, and excellent health insurance.
Personally I think there ought to be pretty good equity across the households, and I've been pushing for more equity for some time. It's ridiculous for him to have this teeny lousy place while we're living in a house. Modest house, granted, but clean, quiet, nice, has yard, nice neighbors, good roof. But he isn't able to take care of a house, not for the foreseeable future. A 2-br apt is a stretch. It's one of the reasons he's willing to have her stay with me.
Gotta run. Btw, the lobbying has motive forces, too, and interestingly enough they're not just bucks. I used to work for the US House of Reps, seen it in action. And thanks for the level & thoughtful responses.
#13
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 18, 2006, 02:05:14 PM
On the contrary. There are a great many problems that can be solved with money. Lack of individual access to good healthcare and legal representation is a big one. Money can buy time, security, health, and a good deal of personal liberty. Most of the science, technology, government (and it's not all bad; try living somewhere chaotic for a while) and art you live with comes from rich people who had liberty to futz around. Your movies/entertainment comes from rich filmschool kids. Regarding which, don't make the mistake of thinking that people work only for money, and will stop working if there's no financial benefit.
Of course the point is not to support a child for life; there's no need to exaggerate. There is a very large difference between keeping an adult child on the dole and helping the adult child pay for school or buy a first home. You appear to have done for yourself, and good for you; but many fortunate and successful adults in this country had parents who gave them a boost or a gift from time to time, and stood ready to help them and the grandchildren financially if there was hardship. My dad did for us when my husband first left work, before we knew the disability would kick in; his help let me stay home and care for my husband and infant daughter instead of putting her in fulltime daycare. Would she have died in daycare? Probably not. But the idea is to do as well for the child as possible, and home care is better than daycare for babies. (No, my husband was not able to care for her.)
Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws, including support formulas. While my ethics and circumstances may not match with those that make the current laws, to say that laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other is off-base.
I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match. Also that in a contest, the law wins. I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum. But none of that has to do with my original question.
=) Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist, btw. And I think if you poke it, you'll find it's a good superficial peacemaker, but not necessarily true.
""then the CP can't budget to include it"
I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue. Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS)."
That's a magic word, control, isn't it. No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue. If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd. Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is. Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them. Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things. If the same amount of $ is there in the support order, then fine, I can expect his half of the costs of ____ will show up, and sign her up.
Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me. So long as I know the money's actually going to show up.
If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter.
Of course the point is not to support a child for life; there's no need to exaggerate. There is a very large difference between keeping an adult child on the dole and helping the adult child pay for school or buy a first home. You appear to have done for yourself, and good for you; but many fortunate and successful adults in this country had parents who gave them a boost or a gift from time to time, and stood ready to help them and the grandchildren financially if there was hardship. My dad did for us when my husband first left work, before we knew the disability would kick in; his help let me stay home and care for my husband and infant daughter instead of putting her in fulltime daycare. Would she have died in daycare? Probably not. But the idea is to do as well for the child as possible, and home care is better than daycare for babies. (No, my husband was not able to care for her.)
Values, ethics, mores, and hard realities are what drive the formation of laws, including support formulas. While my ethics and circumstances may not match with those that make the current laws, to say that laws and ethics have nothing to do with each other is off-base.
I'm well aware, btw, that my ethics and the ethics behind c/s formulas don't match. Also that in a contest, the law wins. I'm not planning on budgeting for more than the minimum. But none of that has to do with my original question.
=) Your part about no moral sense or ethics being better than another works only if you're a relativist, btw. And I think if you poke it, you'll find it's a good superficial peacemaker, but not necessarily true.
""then the CP can't budget to include it"
I see, so the heart of the matter is a control issue. Part of getting a divorce means that you no longer have control over how your Ex choses to spend his money (over and above CS)."
That's a magic word, control, isn't it. No, it's a sensible budgeting and quality-of-life issue. If the money is not reliably in the budget, I can't plan to spend it on dd. Not an issue for one-time expenses, but for ongoing expenses it is. Random gifts of money are very nice, but I'm not budgeting for ___ lessons based on them. Which may just mean dd doesn't get those things. If the same amount of $ is there in the support order, then fine, I can expect his half of the costs of ____ will show up, and sign her up.
Actually if X wants to designate the money for certain things for her, that's fine with me. So long as I know the money's actually going to show up.
If he regards it as 'his' money, btw, then he hasn't promised it to her, has he. And that's at the heart of the matter.
#14
Child Support Issues / RE: Going back to the original post....
Oct 18, 2006, 11:29:44 AM
"Quite honestly it sounds as if you dont need his money to begin with, so why does this bother you?"
This is not, I think, a good way to look at it. The obligation is absolute. It wouldn't matter if I made a million bucks a minute. One of his jobs is to provide whatever he can for her, in a way that is healthy for her; I have the same job. If she doesn't need the money now, she may need it later. Or she may want it later for school or business. (All those rich doctors you see? The young ones are likely walking around $200K in school debt, or more from starting their practices, with the interest meter ticking. It'll be years and years before they see black. Some never will.) She may turn out to be an artist, and that's an expensive way to live; he may be a good enough father to support her in that with savings from childhood. She may get sick, or have a child with disabilities. She may even have to go through a nasty divorce from a rich guy with an expensive lawyer after she's stayed home for fifteen years. Savings from daddy is never a bad thing to have in reserve. The worst it can do is go unused and collect interest for grandchildren.
What you say up there is the kind of thinking that helps divorce men from their kids, I think -- the kind of thing that leads people to say, "Well, her new husband is rich, so she doesn't need the daddy's money." The daddy's money is for the kid, not the mom, and his connection and obligation don't go away because the mom is now married again. The obligation is part of the connection.
Oh. About second jobs cutting into time with the kids -- if there's only minimum visitation -- which I think is generally tragic anyway -- then come on, there's plenty of time in the schedule to pick up extra work or go to night school & get prepped to do freelance or contract work.
"Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money. A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000. Why? It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle. The needs are housing, clothes, and food. And designer clothes are not basic needs...."
No, the needs are education, high-quality care, good insurance, and opportunities to find passions that can become professions. In other words, the things that lead the child to a rich adult life where she can use her gifts to the fullest, for herself and for others, and protect herself and her kids from hardships.
I'm finding this to be an interesting conversation classwise. What I'm putting out here is the ordinary professional-class party line. It's well-understood there that a kid's education is expensive, from birth to launch, but pays off huge. That message is not sticking to anything here; I'm hearing in reply a lot of "Parents owe their children food, housing, clothes, love, and no more; in fact more may spoil them." What it says to me is that there may be a profound class gap in attitude that isn't easily bridged. Also that it may go a long way toward explaining how rigid we are socioeconomically, how hard it is to move up if you're down, how unlikely it is you'll move down if you're up.
=) too bad I'm not a sociologist....
This is not, I think, a good way to look at it. The obligation is absolute. It wouldn't matter if I made a million bucks a minute. One of his jobs is to provide whatever he can for her, in a way that is healthy for her; I have the same job. If she doesn't need the money now, she may need it later. Or she may want it later for school or business. (All those rich doctors you see? The young ones are likely walking around $200K in school debt, or more from starting their practices, with the interest meter ticking. It'll be years and years before they see black. Some never will.) She may turn out to be an artist, and that's an expensive way to live; he may be a good enough father to support her in that with savings from childhood. She may get sick, or have a child with disabilities. She may even have to go through a nasty divorce from a rich guy with an expensive lawyer after she's stayed home for fifteen years. Savings from daddy is never a bad thing to have in reserve. The worst it can do is go unused and collect interest for grandchildren.
What you say up there is the kind of thinking that helps divorce men from their kids, I think -- the kind of thing that leads people to say, "Well, her new husband is rich, so she doesn't need the daddy's money." The daddy's money is for the kid, not the mom, and his connection and obligation don't go away because the mom is now married again. The obligation is part of the connection.
Oh. About second jobs cutting into time with the kids -- if there's only minimum visitation -- which I think is generally tragic anyway -- then come on, there's plenty of time in the schedule to pick up extra work or go to night school & get prepped to do freelance or contract work.
"Also, ask yourself why CS is higher just because a parent makes more money. A combined income of $5,000 means a child needs more to live than a child whose parents have a combined income of $1,000. Why? It is not the child's needs that are being met by that money, but the parents lifestyle. The needs are housing, clothes, and food. And designer clothes are not basic needs...."
No, the needs are education, high-quality care, good insurance, and opportunities to find passions that can become professions. In other words, the things that lead the child to a rich adult life where she can use her gifts to the fullest, for herself and for others, and protect herself and her kids from hardships.
I'm finding this to be an interesting conversation classwise. What I'm putting out here is the ordinary professional-class party line. It's well-understood there that a kid's education is expensive, from birth to launch, but pays off huge. That message is not sticking to anything here; I'm hearing in reply a lot of "Parents owe their children food, housing, clothes, love, and no more; in fact more may spoil them." What it says to me is that there may be a profound class gap in attitude that isn't easily bridged. Also that it may go a long way toward explaining how rigid we are socioeconomically, how hard it is to move up if you're down, how unlikely it is you'll move down if you're up.
=) too bad I'm not a sociologist....
#15
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 18, 2006, 11:16:22 AM
"Why would the NCP voluntarily obigate himself to pay an amount that a judge has no ability to award otherwise?"
Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money. My father, incidentally, did this. Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered. I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar.
"Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO."
True; however, then the CP can't budget to include it, so there's no reliable increase in standard of living for the children. If x agrees that, say, dd should have bassoon lessons, but then flakes after five months on the cost of the lessons and bassoon rental, I'm stuck either scrambling to pay, or -- if it happens repeatedly -- teaching the girl that there's not much point being disciplined/serious about new things she tries, since she'll probably have to quit. Given the way my x handles money, I'd be disinclined to start the lessons unless I planned to pay entirely on my own. I certainly wouldn't base a mortgage payment on it. He generally means well, but I have doubts that the money would actually make it over here unless it was automatic.
"Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?"
Well, that's not really germane. We will see what he does.
As for the offer -- why do you need to wait for an offer? You can do the math yourself, figure up what you can skin yourself for, and call it the kid's. If you've got any kind of middle-class earning & money-mgmt ability, it's going to be better than 150% anyway. After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren. Please. Yes, of course I would do all that. This is why I think this whole business of looking to the state minimums is sad.
Because he or she loves the children and is a stand-up type who doesn't have to be told how far he can support his kids; trusts the CP to spend the money wisely on the kids (or makes alternate arrangements for disbursement); and understands it's to the children's advantage if the CP can budget for and plan with the money. My father, incidentally, did this. Paid (much) more than was required and gave my mother nearly all the assets, though this would never have been ordered. I know other stand-up NCPs who do similar.
"Also, the NCP can still pay for extras if he choses to without the extra amount being included in the CO."
True; however, then the CP can't budget to include it, so there's no reliable increase in standard of living for the children. If x agrees that, say, dd should have bassoon lessons, but then flakes after five months on the cost of the lessons and bassoon rental, I'm stuck either scrambling to pay, or -- if it happens repeatedly -- teaching the girl that there's not much point being disciplined/serious about new things she tries, since she'll probably have to quit. Given the way my x handles money, I'd be disinclined to start the lessons unless I planned to pay entirely on my own. I certainly wouldn't base a mortgage payment on it. He generally means well, but I have doubts that the money would actually make it over here unless it was automatic.
"Do you really think that your Ex will be agreeable to paying CS in excess of the guidelines?"
Well, that's not really germane. We will see what he does.
As for the offer -- why do you need to wait for an offer? You can do the math yourself, figure up what you can skin yourself for, and call it the kid's. If you've got any kind of middle-class earning & money-mgmt ability, it's going to be better than 150% anyway. After 18 there are ways to put that towards college extras incl. saving for graduate school expenses and help with first-homebuying or business-establishing, and after 23 one continues to save for both the kid and any grandchildren. Please. Yes, of course I would do all that. This is why I think this whole business of looking to the state minimums is sad.
#16
Child Support Issues / RE: This is not a perfect world...m
Oct 17, 2006, 03:03:54 PM
>and not everyone can or is willing to give all for thier
>children. I think that is what the majority of the posters
>are trying to tell you.
And that's the part that has me shaking my head.
>You say there are those who shouldn't have children, I agree
>to some extent, but many who are on this board already have
>the children in place prior to things going haywire.
Yes. Otoh, there's haywire and haywire. If you know you're not likely to be topping $12/h, well, you can write up the budget yourself, and think, "If we divorce, or if something happens to this fella, can I take care of a kid on my own? Two? Three? Six?"
>What is your opinion on the following issue:
>
>Say a Highly paid NCP gets laid off (happens alot), and the
>only way he/she can get another job paying anything close to
>what they were getting paid was to move across country????
Involuntary is involuntary, but there are many more telecommute, contract, and business options open than there used to be. The basic principle applies: Get more clever about how to make more $ while preserving time for kid. Also think about where the limits are & opportunities for having kids work alongside you if the relationships/ages are conducive to that.
>OR they could take a less paying job and TRY to get a downward
>mod on the CS just to be able to live and stay near thier
>child?
Or they could get creative during what's hopefully a temporary downturn, and not wait for a local brick-and-mortar employer to show up with jobs on offer. In the meantime, the income is what it is.
>What if that same poor NCP had a vindictive PBFH who uses the
>CS to keep sitting on their butt at home...and he/she kept
>taking the NCP to court every other year just to up the CS?
Then the poor NCP has a problem indeed -- not the at-home butt (and, you know, I've been an at-home mom, and it's not a hell of a lot of fun or relaxation, frankly), but the fact that the kid may not be getting the benefit. Then the NCP can sue for shared custody and be in a better position to see that the kid does get the benefit. Otherwise, the NCP can meet the CS limits and then, as previously discussed, go over that in ways that don't touch the CP's bank account.
>I am not only a CP, I'm also a NCP...so I see both sides of
>the problem. My 2 that are with me don't get support...it's
>ordered, and I have tried all I can to get the support they
>need, but it doesn't happen. WHY??? The one I send support
>to...gets what she needs, has what she needs, except I have a
>vindictive X who took her across country and now I only get to
>see her 1-2 X's a year AND by doing that...It UPPED my CS
>obligation because now I have less time with her...It's not
>fair and doesn't fit in a perfect tidy package all wrapped up
>with a bow. I am owed over $17,000 in back CS, he's working,
>he just doesn't pay and Child Support Enforcement can't seem
>to get him to pay because once they "find" him, he takes off
>again. Sure it "Should NOT" be this way...but that's the
>REALITY of CS that many of us face....
Yes, I know. Which is the basis of the "what the hell is wrong with people, trying to pay less money for their kids?"
>We don't want to seem that we are picking on you, it's just we
>don't feel you quite seem to grasp the true reality of how
>messed up Child support can become!!!
Look, frankly, child support is and will be the least of our problems. What I'm asking about -- if you go back to the first post -- is the absence of sentiment that says, "I have children. They come first. I will do whatever I need to do to give them everything they can reasonably use, and then I will tuck away as much as I can for when they're older and find ordinary adult uses for the money. I will at the same time figure out how to spend time being a parent and take care of myself, also knowing that childhood is temporary. These are the driving forces and I will not willingly do anything that puts the goals in jeopardy."
I gotta get back to work. More in a while.
>children. I think that is what the majority of the posters
>are trying to tell you.
And that's the part that has me shaking my head.
>You say there are those who shouldn't have children, I agree
>to some extent, but many who are on this board already have
>the children in place prior to things going haywire.
Yes. Otoh, there's haywire and haywire. If you know you're not likely to be topping $12/h, well, you can write up the budget yourself, and think, "If we divorce, or if something happens to this fella, can I take care of a kid on my own? Two? Three? Six?"
>What is your opinion on the following issue:
>
>Say a Highly paid NCP gets laid off (happens alot), and the
>only way he/she can get another job paying anything close to
>what they were getting paid was to move across country????
Involuntary is involuntary, but there are many more telecommute, contract, and business options open than there used to be. The basic principle applies: Get more clever about how to make more $ while preserving time for kid. Also think about where the limits are & opportunities for having kids work alongside you if the relationships/ages are conducive to that.
>OR they could take a less paying job and TRY to get a downward
>mod on the CS just to be able to live and stay near thier
>child?
Or they could get creative during what's hopefully a temporary downturn, and not wait for a local brick-and-mortar employer to show up with jobs on offer. In the meantime, the income is what it is.
>What if that same poor NCP had a vindictive PBFH who uses the
>CS to keep sitting on their butt at home...and he/she kept
>taking the NCP to court every other year just to up the CS?
Then the poor NCP has a problem indeed -- not the at-home butt (and, you know, I've been an at-home mom, and it's not a hell of a lot of fun or relaxation, frankly), but the fact that the kid may not be getting the benefit. Then the NCP can sue for shared custody and be in a better position to see that the kid does get the benefit. Otherwise, the NCP can meet the CS limits and then, as previously discussed, go over that in ways that don't touch the CP's bank account.
>I am not only a CP, I'm also a NCP...so I see both sides of
>the problem. My 2 that are with me don't get support...it's
>ordered, and I have tried all I can to get the support they
>need, but it doesn't happen. WHY??? The one I send support
>to...gets what she needs, has what she needs, except I have a
>vindictive X who took her across country and now I only get to
>see her 1-2 X's a year AND by doing that...It UPPED my CS
>obligation because now I have less time with her...It's not
>fair and doesn't fit in a perfect tidy package all wrapped up
>with a bow. I am owed over $17,000 in back CS, he's working,
>he just doesn't pay and Child Support Enforcement can't seem
>to get him to pay because once they "find" him, he takes off
>again. Sure it "Should NOT" be this way...but that's the
>REALITY of CS that many of us face....
Yes, I know. Which is the basis of the "what the hell is wrong with people, trying to pay less money for their kids?"
>We don't want to seem that we are picking on you, it's just we
>don't feel you quite seem to grasp the true reality of how
>messed up Child support can become!!!
Look, frankly, child support is and will be the least of our problems. What I'm asking about -- if you go back to the first post -- is the absence of sentiment that says, "I have children. They come first. I will do whatever I need to do to give them everything they can reasonably use, and then I will tuck away as much as I can for when they're older and find ordinary adult uses for the money. I will at the same time figure out how to spend time being a parent and take care of myself, also knowing that childhood is temporary. These are the driving forces and I will not willingly do anything that puts the goals in jeopardy."
I gotta get back to work. More in a while.
#17
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 17, 2006, 02:41:25 PM>>
>>
>
>Timtow, I don't want to come across like I am attacking you, I
>am just trying understand.
>
No offense taken.
>First, the term visitation is abhorrent to me.
Me too. I agree with you. I'm just using the system's terms. I stand corrected.
>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).
I agree, unless it's harder on the kids to shuttle. On my end, it has to do with the nature of x's disability, which I'll not go into here, but yes, it's a safety/welfare issue. He's asking me to take primary care for his own reasons, so that's convenient and saves an ugly/expensive fight. I have no driving need to be Martyred All-The-Time Mom.
>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.
There's no reason you should've known this, but x and I have been separated for 1.5 years. I've tried to structure things so that he sees her every day, and she's had few days in her life without him. I don't schedule her for anything during "his time" unless he consents and we work out something to make it up. Unless his presence is somehow dangerous to her, or he's bringing her around dangerous people, I don't see how it can be bad for her to spend time with her daddy. "Liberal" will likely mean "as much as he can tolerate", since he's been the one pulling back. I expect we'll have more tugging-and-pulling as she gets older and can throw her own wishes into the mix.
> Bottom line, dad has the kids physically, not
>emotionally.
=) Sense can cure that.
>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?
Actually it tops even the minimum I'd look 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?
No. If he's old and broke she's got the same problem as she will if I'm old and broke. The idea is that his disability income is so high that the insured retirement match alone beats the c/s payment. This is private disability, not SSD.
>Lastly, if you ex is on disability, his income has been
>reduced.
Yes. It's still more than most American households see. Private disability insurance is a very good thing to have.
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......
His income will still likely top mine. At that point I wouldn't be obliged to pay him directly -- it'd be the other way around -- but I'd certainly agree to funnel any over-min into accounts and payees for her.
>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.
You sound like a good daddy with lucky kids.
#18
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 17, 2006, 08:34:45 AM
No, didn't say he should get a second job (though I'd prefer he either kept his disability or, once off, maintained his current income level; he's capable of it). Am saying that if a hypothetical NCP is strapped for cash, and is attempting to solve problem by seeking c/s reduction, why not work second job instead and boost both own income and c/s?
#19
Child Support Issues / RE: There are some NCP's out there that...
Oct 17, 2006, 08:31:44 AM
yes, which is why you can structure an agreement so that over-min is channeled without going through the CP's hands. ;) My x gets lucky on this count. Actually I offered to set things up this way, but he declined, would rather it all just go through me.
#20
Child Support Issues / RE: Why looking to keep c/s low?
Oct 17, 2006, 08:29:15 AM
thanks for the lucid posts, Stirling. Yes, retirement comes first, for several fin reasons, not least unavailability of old-age grants and loans beyond whatever might remain of Soc Sec and Medicare/Medicaid. The idea is to do both, though. Am on track for both solo. Does not negate x's ethical responsibility to dd, noted in your post below. (And actually we do live in a CO-college-costs state, though then you're left with the enforcement realities.) Will come back to the legal/ethical distinction later....