To Moms W/O Custody

[gr8Dad]

I am not sure WHY her being a SPARC member for a long time would prevent her from DOING that, but she did.  Want proof, I will provide below:

He wrote that there should be a presumption of 50/50 without CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence of abuse or unfit parenting.  She responded with this, "For #1 -- you still say "In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the court of wrong-doing" and that's the part that bugs me. Too many "parents" out there still accuse the other of wrong doing and it's all a crock of lies (and I'm talking abuse). DH (IMHO) is the victim of false allegations."

Okay, now WHAT do false allegations have to do with CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence?  Nothing, that is what makes them false.

He responded with, "Wow, mixedbag.  I see why you choase your username." (Note to reader, this is a WHOLELY separate sentence from the first sentence, a COMMENT on her signature line, not an ATTACK, or an INSULT, a COMMENT), "I am completely confused as to what it is that you are asking. Waht I read into your reply is that "some" parents tell a bunch of lies by accusing the other parent of wrong-doing. That is just one reason why I said, "clear and convincing evidence". Accusations must be beyond refute to be clear and convincing."

Again, he was as confused as I was.  What do false allegations have to do with CLEAR AND CONVINCING evidence?  

MixedBag responded with this, "It's funny -- I responded without any attacks...and politely did so without calling you a single name.  Yet, you said "I see why you choase your username."  Sorry, but that was uncalled for."  It was NOT an attack or insult, it was a comment.  Like when I say my name is "gr8Dad", and ended my posts with "And I have eight kids", the next comment of "Oh, I see how you got your name..." Would not be an INSULT, simply a COMMENT.  He wasn't even ANGRY with her, simply, as stated, CONFUSED.

And I don't blame him, as I was confused with her comment.

[gr8Dad]

That is the PROBLEM.  One or both parents have to come into court and PROVE they are good parents.  You, I and everyone else have the right to a presumption of innocence in court.  To make you PROVE you are a good parent would make the court set down a clear set of "rules" to parenting.  First, I do not want the government setting standards like that.  Second, what is right?  You might think spanking is okay, someone else might not.  You might think giving a kid candy is okay, some might not.  To many gray areas in parenting.

Now, if you can prove a person is UNFIT in parenting, with clear and concise evidence, and I don't mean "He/She takes them to McDonalds too much.." I mean, he is a drunk, she is a drug addict, he beats them excessively, she doesn't ensure school work is done, etc, then you have a case for limiting parenting time.

[gr8Dad]

There should be a SET amount, regardless of the parents income.  It costs no more to raise the child of a janitor than it does the child of a surgeon.  If the parent making more money wants to spend it on the child, they can, when the child is with them.  Too often child support is actually used as spousal support in disguise.  We hear that the child is entitled to the same standard of living as when the couple was together.  Well, if the person that has primary custody cannot provide that standard, and the standard is THAT important, then give the child to the parent that CAN sustain the standard, don't take the money from the parent that can and give it to the parent that can't.

[stk_agn]

(I'm going to try to say this without taking sides with anyone.)

My ex-husband and I share a son, age 12, I had custody for 8 yrs--he paid CS. HE had custody for 3 yrs--I paid CS.

For the last year we have shared custody 50/50 (literally--- son is with me every other week) NEITHER of us pays CS to the other because time and money that is spent with/on son is when he is with one parnet or the other. No one spends more than the other (unless by their own choice) and we don't ask for reimbursements on anything.

It all boils down to NCP and CP *working* together to do what is best for the child/children. Isn't that what it is all about anyways?

In order for this to work, both mother and father need not dwell on what went wrong or who did what in the marriage. It's in the past, leave it there and focus on your children. Try it, it might just work.

[POC]

Sorry about the typo. I should have said you "chose". I am also sorry that you did not care for how I critiqued your response. Again, I'm sorry, but I try to cut to the chase. But, your response would have made a politican proud. You said a whole lot. You seemingly mastered the issue. Yet, when I was done reading your response, I was left scratching my head.

The fact that one parent may falsely accuse the other of wrong-doing falls woefully short of clear and convincing evidence to the court. You asked about other gray areas - again gray is presumably the opposite of clear and convincing. Those type arguments hardly rebutt the need for clear and convincing evidence in oder to cease the existence of what might possibly be the most important of human relationships - that between a parent and child.

Truthfully, I never looked at the tag line that goes with your name until after your response saying that what I said was uncalled for. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. If it's any consolation, you arent' the first, and I doubt you'll be the last. I will continue to analyze what people say, and critique as I feel it relates to issues. I welcome others to critique what I say. I believe it will help me to better convey whatever point it is that I am trying to make. I am sure you will agree that there are bigger arenas, where the stakes are much larger than here at SPARC.

My salvo was hardly a broad side. It was more of a playful splash of water in the pool over a misworded statement. I hardly consider you my adersary. Don't be afraid to splash back. I can take a little water in my eye.

[MixedBag]

You have a PM.....

And apology accepted.

[POC]

First, you have the presumption all wrong. There must be clear and convincing evidence of wrong-doing in order to deny children and their parents of the right to substantive time with one another.

In the interest of brevity, let me present the idea as passing the hat between each parent in order to provide for the needs of their child(ren). This is what happens in intact families every day. The household "kitty" is the instrument that parents provide for the financial needs of their children by. Amongst those needs are both fixed and variable costs. Fixed costs are needs that remain constant regardless of time at the home - i.e. rent/mortgage, bed, dresser, car seat, etc... Variable costs are needs that vary in relation to the amount of time at each home - i.e. food, transportation, entertainment, etc...

Assuming for a moment that a guideline level is $1,000, and that the legislature determines fixed costs to be 30%, the NCP earns 75% of the joint parental income and the CP earns 25%, and a 40/60 time sharing split, the computation would go as follows:

Total fixed costs = $600 ($300 at each home)
Variable costs =     $700 ($1,000 x .70)
Total funds to the "kitty" for the child = $1,300*

* Notice the child is receiving more, not less support than before.

Each household (CP and NCP0 receives $300 for the fixed costs at that household.
Each household receives its proportionate share of the fixed costs.

CP home receives $300 + $420 = $720 from the kitty
NCP home receives $300 + $280 = $580 from the kitty

The parents fund the kitty proportionate to their respective incomes as follows:
NCP = $1,300 x .75 = $975
CP   = $1,300 x .25 = $325

The NCP puts $975 into the kitty and gets to take out $580. The net effect is a payment of $395 in child support.
The CP puts $325 into the kitty and takes out $720. The net effect is receipt of $395 in child support.

Total combined support for the child is $1,300 at both homes.

I have several adjustments in the full formula. But, that is the nuts and bolts of it.

FYI - The legislature still sets the guideline award levels from which to do the calculations. Of course, those levels should contain a rebuttable presumption as to what percentage of the award is intended for various classifications of needs such as food, shelter, clothing transportation, etc...

[wendl]

What happens is they say the child should live with the same standard of living as if the parents were together HOWEVER this should be true in BOTH households. Many times the ncp cs is high and they can't afford much let alone an apartment of there own. Lots of cps's do not send clothing to the ncps's house therefore more expense for the ncp.

I agree it should be based on a SET amount regardless of the parents income.

**These are my opinions, they are not legal advice**