Messages

>How would you get the money?

Each parents pays the state, just as NCP's do now. The state would send the check to the other parent.


>For families that don't have much, that
>could be desaterous.

Currently, many families with NCP's don't have much money, but are still forced to pay.

>And who would buy what?

Parents would spend money at their discretion, just as they do now. One issue at a time.

>And who would oversee this? I mean both can't have free reign
>on the acocunt.

Each would maintain their own accounts - see above.

>Good idea in theory but how would you make it work.

It is unbelievably simple. You collect checks from both parents, so that each parent shares financial responsibility for their child, while not at their home as well as when they are under their direct care.

>And what if one parent doesn't contribute to the account but uses it
>for the chidren's "needs" when at that person's house?

If a parent doesn't contribute their share, then they get dealt with just as they do now. Again, not trying to reinvent teh wheel.

Although the practical nature of current child support systems is that it isn't, child support should be thought of as the child's money. It should cover the child's reasonable needs, nothing more, nothing less. Simplistically, if the child spends 32 days per year at the NCP home, then 32/365 of the total amount of CS for the year should be apportioned to the NCP home. The remaining 333/365 of that amount should be apportioned to the CP home. If the child spends 120 days at the NCP home, then 120/365 should be apportioned to the NCP home, and 245/365 to the CP home, and so on and so forth for any given time sharing arrangement.

If the child were to go on a 3 week summer camp, parents wouldn't just pay for two of the weeks, because that is where the child will primarily be. They wouldn't come up a coniving scheme to give some type of "credit" for that remaining week either. They would set a total budget for what is reasonable, and pay each summer camp provider for the costs at their particular camp.  So, why would you only provide money to primary homes when the child is there a total of 8 months out of the year, what about the other 4 months?

Answer: Because child support is not for children. More importance has been given to parental designations than for children's needs.

Again, I fully understand that the various states receive welfare grants, tied in part as a percentage of how much they collect in child support. I also know that they receive 90 cents back on the dollar for money that they spend on computers and software systems to track and collect CS.

I understand the defintions for obligor and obligee at nauseum.

Here's one for you - Why not collect CS from both the CP and NCP? That way some states would be entitled to tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of additional dollars in welfare money. At least it would be more equitable.

>I disagree with you about the additional sibling preventing
>the
>parents from being able to work as much. As I said, I am a
>single mother and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!! If I can
>do it, then
>anyone can do it!!!  I DID whatever I had to do to support our
>daughter while he rarely worked even one job.

I didn't say it prevented a parent from working three jobs. I said neither me or any of my siblings would have been better off had my parents done so. As a consequence of them not doing it, we all suffered financially.

>
>I still don't think that the first child's CS should be
>lowered because another child is born, simply because the NCP
>fathered another child.

As described above, that is what typically happens in intact families.

 If I make a decision to have another child, then it is
>my responsibility to provide for that child.  

If you decide to have another child, the per child cost goes down in your home. That does not reduce the amount of CS for your child, but it should. It's cheaper per child to feed multiple children than it is one. I don't like to use examples where the parent is a dirt bag, like you have described. Personally, I'm all for punitive CS guidelines. But, in order to have punitive guidelines you should at least have to determine fault. So, if your ex wasn't a deerlict, I would say an additional child by you should justifiably reduce the amount of support to you for his kid. After all, the new father and yourself would realize a savings on the subsequent child, due to cost savings associated with the first.

If my ex decides
>to father more children, then it is HIS responsibility to
>support those children.  

And the mother of that child too. Also, cost savings for that subsequent child should be considered when determining how much of the child support monies should be apportioned to the NCP home.


>If our daughter was a part of her siblings lives, we would do
>whatever we can to help those children out (as we have done
>for her one sibling that she does have a relationship with).

I'm sorry he's a deerlict. I wish all children could be meaningful parts of their siblings lives. When ever possible, the government should allow that to happen. Obviously, unfit parents throw a monkey wrench into the government's ability to let that happen. There's just not much I can add to that.

>I guess it's my bad luck that my ex turned out to be an unfit
>parent.

It has nothing to do with luck. The fact of the matter is that no parent can force teh other to be a good parent.

>Unfortunately the CS office in my area is so fed up with him,
>that they've just given up!  They tell me that I can't get
>blood from a stone!

Yet they will take away the driver's license of others who are trying to eek out a living.
>
>One good thing that came out of all of this...

I hope you find many other good things too.

You hadn't mentioned anything about your ex being a drugee until now. Obviously, I believe that qualifies as being unfit to parent a child, regardless of gender. Everything I said applies to fit parents. If a trier of fact determines that a parent is unfit, then the child's contact should be limited as is appropriate for the level of unfitness.

As for posting nasty responses, that's just not my style. Others have to post a string of them to me before I respond, because when I do I want plenty of their own rope. I won't give them the satisfaction of using my own.

I'm curious as to what things I've said that you don't agree with. Yes, it's about the children.

>The parent should do everything that they can to make sure
>that BOTH children get what they need.  
>
>I also don't agree about the additional sibling preventing the
>parents from being able to work as much.  I am a single mother
>and for 5 years I worked THREE jobs!!!  If I can do it, then
>anyone can do it!!!

While it would have been nice, and life would have been more comfortable for me if my parents had worked more and earned more money, I don't think both of them should have worked three jobs in order to do so. The government had no authority to interfere with their parental decisions as long as they kept us healthy and safe.

>
>I never said that the first child should receive a larger
>share than the other siblings.  I just hate it when my ex gets
>our Daughter's CS lowered to his fathering more children that
>he DOESN'T support!

My most elder sibling probably hated doing with less money every time she got another brother or sister. If your ex in fact does not support the subsequent children, then the trier of fact has authority to account for that absence of payment.

>
>Bottom line is that ALL children should be supported by BOTH
>parents.  Obviously my ex doesn't agree!

To that I totally agree. And, regardless of whether the needs of the child occur at the CP or NCP home, BOTH parents should AT LEAST share the expense of needs as basic food, shelter, clothing, and transportation. Obviously, my ex doesn't agree!

>Good luck to all of you!

Back at you!

It is common that states have a threshold that the award must deviate form the existing award. This is to prevent frivolous cases that could result in very little difference. However, the fact that TN went from obligor only to income shares is so substantial that that in itself may be considered a substantial change of circumstances. You may want to check the statute, it probably even has such type wording. That being said, it wouldn't make much sense for him to pay thousands in court costs just to save $50 a month or some other little amount.

Knowing what I know, I doubt we are talking about small differences. Assuming that your wife works or that a judge would decide to impute income for her, it is likely that the award would go down, unless his income has increased dramatically since the time of the last order. Without the particulars (which I really don't need or want to know) it is impossible to give definitive answers.

Exactly!

When siblings are born, the elder sibling takes a hit economically. That is just the common sensical realization about it. Not only does the additional sibling probably prevent the parents from being able to work as much, it creates additional household expense, thus reducing discretionary income. It means that the parents likely won't be able to spend as much on housing, transportation, food, entertainment, and just about everything else. Nearly everyone's standard of living goes down with the addition of more children. But, that is not to say that the quality of life does not go up.

Fortunately, some of those expenses can be shared, and that is why it does not costs as much for additional children as it does for the first. But, regardless of how many children there are the first child should not receive a larger share than their subsequent siblings (and yes, vice versa, I thought that went without saying). As the 5th of 6 kids I can tell you how distraught I would have been if my parents had to decided to apportion their money for us children as the chidl support guidelines do.

>The child support was not set forth with the intent to
>exchange hands from the obligor to the obligee, the original
>intent was solely for reimbursements to the state and the feds
>for its expenditures.

I fully understand how welfare plays into it. Nevertheless, the state acts as the intermediary of the passage of money from obligor to obligee. By making the obligor pay, the government pays out less in welfare. The governement only keeps arrearage of CS, which it had already paid out as welfare. When that happens, yes, it is a reimbursement. Yes, that was the intent. What has grown out of that is something far different. Very little CS that is collected has anythign to do with welfare situations. Support that is not paid in welfare situations still goes largely uncollected for the same reason that it was not paid before - those obligors earn hardly any money. Raising guideline levels in those situations does nothing to reduce welfare that is doled out. Yet, that is exactly what has occurred.

Subsequent children should not be born to a lesser god than their elder siblings.