Rethinking the System

[Mediator]

>For the convenience of your website visitors you may want to
>add:
>
>http://198.187.128.12/colorado/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=fs-main.htm&2.0
>
>There you will find the following excerpts from the
>guidelines:
>
>(4) The child support guideline does the following:
>
>(a) Calculates child support based upon the parents' combined
>adjusted gross income estimated to have been allocated to the
>child if the parents and children were living in an intact
>household;

The statutes try to provide for the child at the level of finanical support as if there still were an intact family (this makes sense to me).  The state statute wants the child to experience the ligfestyle as close as possible to what they would have if the parents stayed together.
>
>(Interesting since it will only be applied to households which
>are not intact. Perhaps they can find a cure for sickle-cell
>anemia by studying white Anglo-Saxons too.)
>
>b) Adjusts the child support based upon the needs of the
>children for extraordinary medical expenses and work-related
>child care costs;
>


>(How would anyone know what amount is extraordinary when
>ordinary is undefined? Perhaps a trip with Alice in Wonderland
>is what they had in mind.)


Extraordinary medical expensis is in fact defined as anything above and beyond what insurance covers.
>
>d) The amount of child support actually paid by a parent with
>an order for support of other children shall be deducted from
>that parent's gross income. For the purposes of this section,
>"other children" means children who are not the subject of
>this particular child support determination.
>
>(Why wouldn't each child be afforded the same amount? Does the
>state of Colorado believe that its children are born to
>varying levels of Gods, dependent upon the sequence of their
>birth? What about subsequent chidlren of NCP's too, what God
>determined that their needs not be met equally?)
>

The court recognizes that there is limited income available.  How would you suggest that a parent pay the same amount for every child even if they created ten.  I have had clients that could not afford one let alone the seven they had.  There is nothing stopping the parent from paying more for support of their children.  The guidlines are the minimum.  You speak of the wisdom of the parents yet you remove their responsibility for supporting their children.
>(14)
>
>b) In cases of shared physical care, each parent's adjusted
>basic child support obligation obtained by application of
>paragraph (c) of subsection (10) of this section shall first
>be divided between the parents in proportion to their
>respective adjusted gross incomes. Each parent's share of the
>adjusted basic child support obligation shall then be
>multiplied by the percentage of time the children spend with
>the other parent to determine the theoretical basic child
>support obligation owed to the other parent. To these amounts
>shall be added each parent's proportionate share of
>work-related net child care costs, extraordinary medical
>expenses, and extraordinary adjustments to the schedule. The
>parent owing the greater amount of child support shall owe the
>difference between the two amounts as a child support order
>minus any ordered direct payments made on behalf of the
>children for work-related net child care costs, extraordinary
>medical expenses, or extraordinary adjustments to schedule. In
>no case, however, shall the amount of child support ordered to
>be paid exceed the amount of child support that would
>otherwise be ordered to be paid if the parents did not share
>physical custody.
>
>(Long/short it is flawed math, albeit better than most states.
>Any mathematically valid formula can be tested for its
>validity at any point along the spectrum. The formula should
>be seamless. It should just as equitably provide for a child's
>needs at 25/340 time sharing as it does at 50/50 time sharing.
>At the same income level a difference of 5 days from 90 to 95
>days should be the same dollar difference as from 160 to 165
>days. There is no logical reason, other than that it is an
>arbitray threshold to provide for a child's needs at 92, but
>not 91. Obviously the child at 91 days is forced to suffer
>deprivations that the child at 92 does not. Any time you see a
>disclaimer like that of the last sentence in 14b, it is a
>tell-tale sign that you are working with a flawed formula.
>Again, valid mathematical formulas can be applied to all
>points. Valid formulas for varying scenarios such as time and
>incomes exist. The choice of the Colorado Legislature not to
>use them leaves chidlren in the lurch.)

Not so; the overnights is based on the overhead that that aoount of care requires.
>
>Conspicuously absent from these guidelines are the basis from
>which they were comprised. Federal statutes require that there
>be a rebuttable presumption. But, they are impossible to
>rebutt, since it does not say what they are intended to
>provide for and in what amounts. How would you differentiate a
>200 pound 17 year-old's dietary needs from a frail 5 year-old
>girl. These guidelines would have you believe that their needs
>are the same. The judge has nothing to go on to determine
>whether the amount of support being ordered is appropriate in
>any particular case.

Not so again;  the statutes provide for apporpriate deviations from the guidelines.  While deviations must be supported they are flexible enough to accomaodate any circumstances that may exist.
>
>If the table amounts were defined as 20% for housing, 22% for
>transportation, etc.. then a rebuttable presumption for the
>child's particular needs would exist. All you would have to do
>is look at the financial affidavits to determine if it were
>appopriate, or not. Instead, judges are left to arbitrarily
>ass-u-me.

They do not assume but rather listen to each parents positions and reasoning.
>
>I suggest that the Colorado Legislature take a remedial
>Pre-Algebra course. Next, they may want to rebuke parasytical
>child support collection companies, such as Policy Studies,
>Inc. And, at minimum they should state a public policy that
>"allows" for ALL fit parents and their children to share a
>meaningful amount of time with each other, whatever they
>determine that amount of time to be.

they already do.  The courts do not limit the amount of time the parents can be with their children.  It is up to parents to determine the time.  The courts only get involved when the parents ask them to.
>
>It seems kind of silly that there would even be much debate
>about that, doesn't it?

Talk to the parents and you will hear debate on this issue all the time, which is why the courts are asked to intervene.

All of yor concerns go away when parents take their vows and/or parenting seriously.


Every parent tells me that their position is for the best interest of their child yet they somehow come up with very different positions including moving out of state or to another country with the child and therefore removing the child from seeing the other parent.  Some parents also see no harm in driving without child car seats or using drugs in front of their children.  These parents you speak of are simply not always competant at their job of parenting.  Parents do not oversee their childrens education, allow truancy and every other poor behavior you can imagine.  Of course they can not communicate wtih each other so the courts must get involved for the welfare of the child.  Until there is a law prohibiting bad parents from procreating we will find ourselves in this mess.

[POC]

>The statutes try to provide for the child at the level of
>finanical support as if there still were an intact family
>(this makes sense to me).  The state statute wants the child
>to experience the ligfestyle as close as possible to what they
>would have if the parents stayed together.

Child support should be based upon a child's needs and the parents ability to pay, not on some type of arrangement which is unlike the reality of the situation in which they live. An intact family does not need to provide for two homes for a child and the parent who maintains it. Furthermore, there is no valid state interest, other than maintaining the ability to defraud the feds out of welfare money, to set a standard of living for children. Where does the state derive its authority to require expenditures on children beyond a child's needs?

As an example, your neighbor may be an attorney too. Assuming that both of you have teenagers, one set of parents may may believe that providing a car is the worst thing you can do for a teenager. The other set may believe that spoiling their kid is their right, and they intend to do as much of at as they can while they are on this earth. Both sets of parents could easily afford the car, but they come to far different decisions. What authority does the state have to impose on these type of lifestyls and parental decisions?

The state's legitimate authority over parental decisions begins and ends with protecting the child. When it starts to hold parents to different accounts based upon their marital status it is in violation of parents and children's constitutional rights to not be treated unequally.  




>Extraordinary medical expensis is in fact defined as anything
>above and beyond what insurance covers.

Sorry about that, it was late and my first time through the Colorado guidelines. If it defines what it is considered ordinary, then it is fine. But, the Alice in Wonderland analogy still applies to other items which are presumably covereed by the guidelines, such as food, shelter, and clothing. However, I do tip my hat that they made a legitimate attempt to provide some rationale for transportation expenses. It's a start anyway.


>The court recognizes that there is limited income available.
>How would you suggest that a parent pay the same amount for
>every child even if they created ten.  I have had clients that
>could not afford one let alone the seven they had.  There is
>nothing stopping the parent from paying more for support of
>their children.  The guidlines are the minimum.  You speak of
>the wisdom of the parents yet you remove their responsibility
>for supporting their children.

I am not suggesting that parents pay the exact amount for multiple children. Those decisions should be left to parents. What I am saying is that the apportionment of child support money to meet various children's needs must be equal. Parents may in fact spend beyond those amounts, and typically do. But, big brother has no business dictating that to them. Your example of clients who couldn't afford one child, let alone the seven that they had is duly noted. Again, the government's authority to dictate expenditures on them is no different, whether they be married or divorced. In all cases, the government has a duty to assure that children's needs be met. If the government wre truly looking after the child's best interests, then I suppose these types of children would becoem wards of the state. But, it is not about children's best interests, so let's not go there.





>Not so again;  the statutes provide for apporpriate deviations
>from the guidelines.  While deviations must be supported they
>are flexible enough to accomaodate any circumstances that may
>exist.

The fact that there is a deviation formula proves that the base formula is invalid. How can you prove that something is inappropriate when the appropriate amount is undefined? The guidelines have combined a formula that is easily proven to be flawed with a set of tables that do not state which needs and what the amounts of those needs are. How can you make an appropriate deviation when there is nothing to rebutt? Now we go back to the Alice in Wonderland - the court will know when they arrive at the appropriate amount when they get there.

There is no logical reason as to why you can arrive at a compiliation of needs and for a child and put that number in a table and not give the separate numbers or estimates of the separate various needs, and not define what those amounts are. At best, the table amounts are arbitrary and violate Due Process. At worst, they were put together by a collection company, that has an interest in inflating the numbers, and are fraudulent. Why such deception about the compilation of the needs for the child? Heck, if the child is truly beign short-changed shouldn't you be able to prove it?

>
>They do not assume but rather listen to each parents positions
>and reasoning.

They do in fact ass-u-me that the numbers are right, unless you can prove that it is inappropriate. Judges are rendered helpless to arrive at a just and appropriate decision, because the guidelines are arbitrary. If the CS amount is right, it is purely by chance. How do you know if Johny is being given enough money for a roof over his head when the guidelines do not say what amount of money is intended for that need? Are housing costs different in Aspen than they are in say Sterling, CO? It would be impossbile for a judge to know if he were providing too much or too little.


>they already do.  The courts do not limit the amount of time
>the parents can be with their children.  It is up to parents
>to determine the time.  The courts only get involved when the
>parents ask them to.

Not true, short of work, child's school, etc... parents ability to spend time with their children only become restricted when a court order limits that ability. Typically, the parent who is denied the most access is not the one petitioning the court. The single biggest barrier that prevents good dads from spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire.


>Talk to the parents and you will hear debate on this issue all
>the time, which is why the courts are asked to intervene.

If the court has already determined the parents to be fit, which by the way, is a legitimate funcion of the court, then what grounds is there to deny a meaningful amount of time?


>All of yor concerns go away when parents take their vows
>and/or parenting seriously.

While you can ask and hope that your spouse does just that, that is not something to ask the government. But, the government can promote that by eliminating the perverse incentives that exist to separate children from one of their parents, which is almost always the father. Take away the trophy and government will be well on its way in doing so.

>Every parent tells me that their position is for the best
>interest of their child yet they somehow come up with very
>different positions including moving out of state or to
>another country with the child and therefore removing the
>child from seeing the other parent.  Some parents also see no
>harm in driving without child car seats or using drugs in
>front of their children.  These parents you speak of are
>simply not always competant at their job of parenting.
>Parents do not oversee their childrens education, allow
>truancy and every other poor behavior you can imagine.  Of
>course they can not communicate wtih each other so the courts
>must get involved for the welfare of the child.  Until there
>is a law prohibiting bad parents from procreating we will find
>ourselves in this mess.

Best interests of the child is a term that parents have picked up, because courts have abused it, by the absence of a basis to it. The same court that finds a parent to be unfit is quick to allow that very parent to adopt another - go figure. Whose interest is being served? The problems you speak of overwhelming occur in fatherless homes. It is wasy to pass a law preventing move aways. Why not do so?

The parents I speak of are competent to do their job. They are the parents who have not been found unfit. Courts are ill-equipped to do the job of fit parents. When fit parents are involved courts should yield.

[Mediator]

>
>>The statutes try to provide for the child at the level of
>>finanical support as if there still were an intact family
>>(this makes sense to me).  The state statute wants the child
>>to experience the ligfestyle as close as possible to what
>they
>>would have if the parents stayed together.
>
>Child support should be based upon a child's needs and the
>parents ability to pay, not on some type of arrangement which
>is unlike the reality of the situation in which they live. An
>intact family does not need to provide for two homes for a
>child and the parent who maintains it. Furthermore, there is
>no valid state interest, other than maintaining the ability to
>defraud the feds out of welfare money, to set a standard of
>living for children. Where does the state derive its authority
>to require expenditures on children beyond a child's needs?
>
>As an example, your neighbor may be an attorney too. Assuming
>that both of you have teenagers, one set of parents may may
>believe that providing a car is the worst thing you can do for
>a teenager. The other set may believe that spoiling their kid
>is their right, and they intend to do as much of at as they
>can while they are on this earth. Both sets of parents could
>easily afford the car, but they come to far different
>decisions. What authority does the state have to impose on
>these type of lifestyls and parental decisions?

The court does not insist that the child have a car but rather states that the child's financial situation should be one where it could be afforded.
>
>The state's legitimate authority over parental decisions
>begins and ends with protecting the child. When it starts to
>hold parents to different accounts based upon their marital
>status it is in violation of parents and children's
>constitutional rights to not be treated unequally.  
>
>
>
>
>>Extraordinary medical expensis is in fact defined as
>anything
>>above and beyond what insurance covers.
>
>Sorry about that, it was late and my first time through the
>Colorado guidelines. If it defines what it is considered
>ordinary, then it is fine. But, the Alice in Wonderland
>analogy still applies to other items which are presumably
>covereed by the guidelines, such as food, shelter, and
>clothing. However, I do tip my hat that they made a legitimate
>attempt to provide some rationale for transportation expenses.
>It's a start anyway.
>
>

All of these things are covered by bein gguilt into the shared gross income calculations for mutual child support.  The gross incomes are calculated and then the total child support is determined (this is the child support that the child is due from both parents).  Based on the relative ability to pay (percentage of total gross income and number of overnightrs the individual child support is determined.  It is then adjusted for other items such as unique circumstances or who is paying for the health insurance etc.
>>The court recognizes that there is limited income available.
>
>>How would you suggest that a parent pay the same amount for
>>every child even if they created ten.  I have had clients
>that
>>could not afford one let alone the seven they had.  There is
>>nothing stopping the parent from paying more for support of
>>their children.  The guidlines are the minimum.  You speak
>of
>>the wisdom of the parents yet you remove their
>responsibility
>>for supporting their children.
>
>I am not suggesting that parents pay the exact amount for
>multiple children. Those decisions should be left to parents.

Parents going to the court for intervention are already stating from the outset that they can not agree on these issues.  Why do you keep bringing the court in to it as if they are forcing the parents.  It is the parents who are asking the court for help.  the court typically throws it back to the parents and only if they still can not agree does the court make a decision.  The child support guidelines are minimums not maximums.  In fact there is nothing to stop parents from paying the child support ordered and refunding the amount the themselves deem too much to the other parent.  The power still resides with the parents.  


>What I am saying is that the apportionment of child support
>money to meet various children's needs must be equal. Parents
>may in fact spend beyond those amounts, and typically do. But,
>big brother has no business dictating that to them. Your
>example of clients who couldn't afford one child, let alone
>the seven that they had is duly noted. Again, the government's
>authority to dictate expenditures on them is no different,
>whether they be married or divorced. In all cases, the
>government has a duty to assure that children's needs be met.
>If the government wre truly looking after the child's best
>interests, then I suppose these types of children would becoem
>wards of the state. But, it is not about children's best
>interests, so let's not go there.
>
>
>
>
>
>>Not so again;  the statutes provide for apporpriate
>deviations
>>from the guidelines.  While deviations must be supported
>they
>>are flexible enough to accomaodate any circumstances that
>may
>>exist.
>
>The fact that there is a deviation formula proves that the
>base formula is invalid.

It certainly does not; it allows for accomodations for situations that are unique.  The base formula works well enough for most and the deviations allow for any other situation which can be brought forth to discuss.

How can you prove that something is
>inappropriate when the appropriate amount is undefined? The
>guidelines have combined a formula that is easily proven to be
>flawed with a set of tables that do not state which needs and
>what the amounts of those needs are. How can you make an
>appropriate deviation when there is nothing to rebutt? Now we
>go back to the Alice in Wonderland - the court will know when
>they arrive at the appropriate amount when they get there.
>
>There is no logical reason as to why you can arrive at a
>compiliation of needs and for a child and put that number in a
>table and not give the separate numbers or estimates of the
>separate various needs, and not define what those amounts are.

It is done via percentages which is what every budget tool leverages and any economics course teaches.


>At best, the table amounts are arbitrary and violate Due
>Process. At worst, they were put together by a collection
>company, that has an interest in inflating the numbers, and
>are fraudulent. Why such deception about the compilation of
>the needs for the child? Heck, if the child is truly beign
>short-changed shouldn't you be able to prove it?
>
>>
>>They do not assume but rather listen to each parents
>positions
>>and reasoning.
>
>They do in fact ass-u-me that the numbers are right, unless
>you can prove that it is inappropriate. Judges are rendered
>helpless to arrive at a just and appropriate decision, because
>the guidelines are arbitrary. If the CS amount is right, it is
>purely by chance. How do you know if Johny is being given
>enough money for a roof over his head when the guidelines do
>not say what amount of money is intended for that need? Are
>housing costs different in Aspen than they are in say
>Sterling, CO? It would be impossbile for a judge to know if he
>were providing too much or too little.

You seem to want the court to both intervene more and less simultaneously.   The court only knows what ist is told and shown nothing else unless it does its own investigation.
>
>
>>they already do.  The courts do not limit the amount of time
>>the parents can be with their children.  It is up to parents
>>to determine the time.  The courts only get involved when
>the
>>parents ask them to.
>
>Not true, short of work, child's school, etc... parents
>ability to spend time with their children only become
>restricted when a court order limits that ability. Typically,
>the parent who is denied the most access is not the one
>petitioning the court. The single biggest barrier that
>prevents good dads from spending more time with their kids is
>a court order, not a lack of desire.
>
>

I have personally experienced both with my clients. In fact I have seen it both ways with moms and dads.  I have fathers who move far away even though they can move to the same city to be closer to their child.  The mother was consistantly trying to get the father more involved but he talked big but never really showed up to perform.  Obviously there are examples of every type out there.


>>Talk to the parents and you will hear debate on this issue
>all
>>the time, which is why the courts are asked to intervene.
>
>If the court has already determined the parents to be fit,
>which by the way, is a legitimate funcion of the court, then
>what grounds is there to deny a meaningful amount of time?

They do not deny a meaningful amount of time the aprents can agree on the time and stipulate that to the court.  Unless the court finds it uncousiiiionable the court acceptsi it. In fact in CO the statutes state that theey find it in the best interest of the children fo rboth parents to be involved with the childerren at all levelsw to the maximum amount possible.  It is consistantly the parents themselves  who is the restrictor not the court.
>
>
>>All of yor concerns go away when parents take their vows
>>and/or parenting seriously.
>
>While you can ask and hope that your spouse does just that,
>that is not something to ask the government. But, the
>government can promote that by eliminating the perverse
>incentives that exist to separate children from one of their
>parents, which is almost always the father. Take away the
>trophy and government will be well on its way in doing so.

there is not incentive fo rht egovt to take away the child from the father or any other parent.  In fact this state works hard to do just the opposite.
>
>>Every parent tells me that their position is for the best
>>interest of their child yet they somehow come up with very
>>different positions including moving out of state or to
>>another country with the child and therefore removing the
>>child from seeing the other parent.  Some parents also see
>no
>>harm in driving without child car seats or using drugs in
>>front of their children.  These parents you speak of are
>>simply not always competant at their job of parenting.
>>Parents do not oversee their childrens education, allow
>>truancy and every other poor behavior you can imagine.  Of
>>course they can not communicate wtih each other so the
>courts
>>must get involved for the welfare of the child.  Until there
>>is a law prohibiting bad parents from procreating we will
>find
>>ourselves in this mess.
>
>Best interests of the child is a term that parents have picked
>up, because courts have abused it, by the absence of a basis
>to it. The same court that finds a parent to be unfit is quick
>to allow that very parent to adopt another - go figure. Whose
>interest is being served? The problems you speak of
>overwhelming occur in fatherless homes. It is wasy to pass a
>law preventing move aways. Why not do so?

Move aways are allready restricted and generally can be allowed under only limityed conditions that can be either accepted by the other parent or proven to the court to be in the best interest.
>
>The parents I speak of are competent to do their job. They are
>the parents who have not been found unfit. Courts are
>ill-equipped to do the job of fit parents. When fit parents
>are involved courts should yield.


They alrady do jsut that.  There is nothing stopping fit parents that work well together from continuing to do so.  You could not point to one case wher both parents agree that they both are fit parents and have agreed on parenting time that the court will not allow.  Nor could you show me one case where the court forces a parent to move out of state with their child (if the parentws beleived to be fit by each other they woudl nto chose to move). You could not show me one case in which the court did not allow the parent receiving child support from rebating the paying parent money.  You could not show me one case in which the parents agree on the child's after school activity level and the court demanding more or less (unless some grossly innapropiate behavior is involved and it has been reported to the court).

[POC]

>The court does not insist that the child have a car but rather
>states that the child's financial situation should be one
>where it could be afforded.

Where was the state given authority to intervene between parents over expenditures abut their children? Why does the state grant children of divorce payment of a college education, but their counter-parts from married families? What if a married parent believes they should pay for the college education, but their spouse does not? Does that mean the parent who wants the kid to go to college should file for divorce, so that the other is compelled to provide it? These children are being treated unequally, to the detriment of children whose parents are married.

>All of these things are covered by bein gguilt into the shared
>gross income calculations for mutual child support.  The gross
>incomes are calculated and then the total child support is
>determined (this is the child support that the child is due
>from both parents).  Based on the relative ability to pay
>(percentage of total gross income and number of overnightrs
>the individual child support is determined.  It is then
>adjusted for other items such as unique circumstances or who
>is paying for the health insurance etc.

What evidence is there within the statutes that food, shelter, and clothign are provided for? And, if so, in what amounts or percentages of the guideline amount? As you know, children do not receive child support, one of their parents does. On top of that, the obligee retains their own proportionate share of the money.

I will admit tough that one thing I like about the CO guidelines is that the obligor can request that the money actually be spent on the child. However, I've got a feeling that that portion of the guidelines is rarely upheld, and if so it is only the amount that they are paid and not the amount that is from both parents. But, it's a good starting for a system of checks and balances.




>Parents going to the court for intervention are already
>stating from the outset that they can not agree on these
>issues.  Why do you keep bringing the court in to it as if
>they are forcing the parents.  It is the parents who are
>asking the court for help.  the court typically throws it back
>to the parents and only if they still can not agree does the
>court make a decision.  The child support guidelines are
>minimums not maximums.  In fact there is nothing to stop
>parents from paying the child support ordered and refunding
>the amount the themselves deem too much to the other parent.
>The power still resides with the parents.  

Parents don't agree all the time, so what. Just because the court is petitioned doesn't mean that it is compelled to rule on the matter, or that the court has jurisdiction. Proper jurisdicition of parental type decisions are held with the parents. Courts are suited to determine whether the parents are fit or not, and whether chidlren's needs are being met, or not. Again, they have no authority to dictate any standard of living. If there is a law that is tellng them to do so, then it should strike down that law as unconstitutional. Government needs to get out of the business of child-rearing. When it is involved the results are terrible. When it refrains results are far better. What gives a court a right to believe that fit parents won't act in their child's best interests on their own accord?

Yes, I suppose a parent could refund the unused portion of CS. But, that is practically unheard of. More likely is a trip to Tahiti. CS should be for  the care and maintenance of children's needs, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is big brother telling parents how to spend money on their kids. As long as it continues to do so, parents will keep scraming, "Leave us the hell alone."



>It certainly does not; it allows for accomodations for
>situations that are unique.  The base formula works well
>enough for most and the deviations allow for any other
>situation which can be brought forth to discuss.

If a mathematical formula can be proven flawed at any given point, then the formula is flawed. This is basic Pre-Algebra. Valid mathematical formulas that require no deviation are readily at hand. You are confusing the need to make accomodations with the absence of a rebuttable basis to the guidelines, so that special circumstances can be accounted for. But, even in situations such as children with special needs, a valid base formula and a clear description of which needs have been accounted for, is the only way to arrive at an equitable result. There is no logical reason to continue using a flawed base formula. Equitable awards should not be left to chance.



>It is done via percentages which is what every budget tool
>leverages and any economics course teaches.


Wrong, I put more faith in a former Federal Reserve economist than I do a child support collection company. Check it out yourself - http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/

BTW: Economics Professor Steffan Norbin at Florida State University came to a similar conclusion when studying various states CS guidelines. Math and economics is not on your side in this debate.


>You seem to want the court to both intervene more and less
>simultaneously.   The court only knows what ist is told and
>shown nothing else unless it does its own investigation.

The court's first duty is to uphold the Constituion of the United States. Everythng else flows from that. At times that requires more intervention than it is currently involved in. But, more often no action would be best.

 The courts do not limit the amount of
>time
>>>the parents can be with their children.  It is up to
>parents
>>>to determine the time.  The courts only get involved when
>>the
>>>parents ask them to.

I beg to differ. A court order denies me access to more time with my child, which both he and I deserve. That is not an unusual circumstance. I've held appointments on state fatherhood commissions, serve as a Cub Scout Leader, have various certifications to deal with children, and even court testimony from my son's mother that I am a very good father. Yet, over my objections, the state denied me an amount of time that it considers to be substantial (146 overnights). I did not ask the court to deny access between my child and I. The court acted on a petition from the child's mother. Long/short, may son ans I, like the vast majoirty of others were reduced to less than what the court considers a "substantial" amount of time. Obviously, it is enacting a policy that renders parents as unsubstantial parts of their children's lives. This policy has been nothing short of devastating to the children as a whole who are affected by these rulings.


Sorry, gotta go make money. I'll get back with you later.

[Mediator]

>>The court does not insist that the child have a car but
>rather
>>states that the child's financial situation should be one
>>where it could be afforded.
>
>Where was the state given authority to intervene between
>parents over expenditures abut their children? Why does the
>state grant children of divorce payment of a college
>education, but their counter-parts from married families? What
>if a married parent believes they should pay for the college
>education, but their spouse does not? Does that mean the
>parent who wants the kid to go to college should file for
>divorce, so that the other is compelled to provide it? These
>children are being treated unequally, to the detriment of
>children whose parents are married.

Coloraado does not mandate parental financial support for a college education (nor do most states if any) unless there had been a prior agreement betweenthe parents to do so.
>
>>All of these things are covered by bein gguilt into the
>shared
>>gross income calculations for mutual child support.  The
>gross
>>incomes are calculated and then the total child support is
>>determined (this is the child support that the child is due
>>from both parents).  Based on the relative ability to pay
>>(percentage of total gross income and number of overnightrs
>>the individual child support is determined.  It is then
>>adjusted for other items such as unique circumstances or who
>>is paying for the health insurance etc.
>
>What evidence is there within the statutes that food, shelter,
>and clothign are provided for? And, if so, in what amounts or
>percentages of the guideline amount? As you know, children do
>not receive child support, one of their parents does. On top
>of that, the obligee retains their own proportionate share of
>the money.
>
>I will admit tough that one thing I like about the CO
>guidelines is that the obligor can request that the money
>actually be spent on the child. However, I've got a feeling
>that that portion of the guidelines is rarely upheld, and if
>so it is only the amount that they are paid and not the amount
>that is from both parents. But, it's a good starting for a
>system of checks and balances.
>
>Colorado will not include in its calculations the cost of child care unless it is an acutal outlay of funds.  This is true for any additional expenditures such as after school activities.
>
>
>>Parents going to the court for intervention are already
>>stating from the outset that they can not agree on these
>>issues.  Why do you keep bringing the court in to it as if
>>they are forcing the parents.  It is the parents who are
>>asking the court for help.  the court typically throws it
>back
>>to the parents and only if they still can not agree does the
>>court make a decision.  The child support guidelines are
>>minimums not maximums.  In fact there is nothing to stop
>>parents from paying the child support ordered and refunding
>>the amount the themselves deem too much to the other parent.
>
>>The power still resides with the parents.  
>
>Parents don't agree all the time, so what. Just because the
>court is petitioned doesn't mean that it is compelled to rule
>on the matter, or that the court has jurisdiction. Proper
>jurisdicition of parental type decisions are held with the
>parents.

In fact the courts prefer it that way and only act when they do have l=egal jurisdiction and it is in the best interest of the child.

Courts are suited to determine whether the parents
>are fit or not, and whether chidlren's needs are being met, or
>not. Again, they have no authority to dictate any standard of
>living.

If there is evidence that a parent is not providing the minimum care for a child than it is the obligation of the court to step in.  The minimum care is established by the community.  

If there is a law that is tellng them to do so, then
>it should strike down that law as unconstitutional. Government
>needs to get out of the business of child-rearing.

When it is
>involved the results are terrible. When it refrains results
>are far better. What gives a court a right to believe that fit
>parents won't act in their child's best interests on their own
>accord?

There is a large range of what a "fit parent" is.  A parent could be fit in terms of not beating their child but not able to collaborate with the other parent on decision making.  The result often is the child not receiving the services that they require (I in fact had a couple of cases where medical support was not being provided because of parenting inaction due to differences).
>
>Yes, I suppose a parent could refund the unused portion of CS.
>But, that is practically unheard of.

Whatever happend to the "fit parents"  Here is a case where you wanted the parents to decide what financial level of support is appropriate yet you yourself state it does not happen.

More likely is a trip to
>Tahiti. CS should be for  the care and maintenance of
>children's needs, nothing more, nothing less. Anything else is
>big brother telling parents how to spend money on their kids.
>As long as it continues to do so, parents will keep scraming,
>"Leave us the hell alone."

The court does not tell the parent how to spend the CS but simoply states it is for the benefit of the child.  Whatever happened to that fit parent.  Now they are going to Tahiti.  The court certainly did not dictate that they go instead of buying food or clothing.  If the other parent had documentation that the child was suffering because available money was not being spent on them than that is an issue that could be brought to court.
>
>
>
>>It certainly does not; it allows for accomodations for
>>situations that are unique.  The base formula works well
>>enough for most and the deviations allow for any other
>>situation which can be brought forth to discuss.
>
>If a mathematical formula can be proven flawed at any given
>point, then the formula is flawed. This is basic Pre-Algebra.
>Valid mathematical formulas that require no deviation are
>readily at hand. You are confusing the need to make
>accomodations with the absence of a rebuttable basis to the
>guidelines, so that special circumstances can be accounted
>for. But, even in situations such as children with special
>needs, a valid base formula and a clear description of which
>needs have been accounted for, is the only way to arrive at an
>equitable result. There is no logical reason to continue using
>a flawed base formula. Equitable awards should not be left to
>chance.
>
>
>
>>It is done via percentages which is what every budget tool
>>leverages and any economics course teaches.
>
>
>Wrong, I put more faith in a former Federal Reserve economist
>than I do a child support collection company. Check it out
>yourself - http://www.guidelineeconomics.com/

child collection does not determine the formula they simply enforce the regulations.
>
>BTW: Economics Professor Steffan Norbin at Florida State
>University came to a similar conclusion when studying various
>states CS guidelines. Math and economics is not on your side
>in this debate.
>
>
>>You seem to want the court to both intervene more and less
>>simultaneously.   The court only knows what ist is told and
>>shown nothing else unless it does its own investigation.
>
>The court's first duty is to uphold the Constituion of the
>United States. Everythng else flows from that. At times that
>requires more intervention than it is currently involved in.
>But, more often no action would be best.
>
> The courts do not limit the amount of
>>time
>>>>the parents can be with their children.  It is up to
>>parents
>>>>to determine the time.  The courts only get involved when
>>>the
>>>>parents ask them to.
>
>I beg to differ. A court order denies me access to more time
>with my child, which both he and I deserve. That is not an
>unusual circumstance. I've held appointments on state
>fatherhood commissions, serve as a Cub Scout Leader, have
>various certifications to deal with children, and even court
>testimony from my son's mother that I am a very good father.
>Yet, over my objections, the state denied me an amount of time
>that it considers to be substantial (146 overnights). I did
>not ask the court to deny access between my child and I. The
>court acted on a petition from the child's mother. Long/short,
>may son ans I, like the vast majoirty of others were reduced
>to less than what the court considers a "substantial" amount
>of time. Obviously, it is enacting a policy that renders
>parents as unsubstantial parts of their children's lives. This
>policy has been nothing short of devastating to the children
>as a whole who are affected by these rulings.

Then court in its infinite wisdom or lack thereof made this decision upon the mother's request, documentation and arguments in comparison to your own.  This was apparently a case that illistrates my point.  The mother and father did not agree yet both parents were essentially fit so the court was asked to intervene.  the fact that it did not go your way does not change the fact that the court had an obligation and every firth to make the decision.  I do not see a court teling my wife and I how to spend time with our son.  The court gets involved when it is asked.
>
>
>Sorry, gotta go make money. I'll get back with you later.

[POC]

>Coloraado does not mandate parental financial support for a
>college education (nor do most states if any) unless there had
>been a prior agreement betweenthe parents to do so.

(1.5) (a)

III) If the child is still in high school or an equivalent program, support continues until the end of the month following graduation, unless there is an order for postsecondary education, in which case support continues through postsecondary education as provided in subparagraph (I) of paragraph (b) of this subsection (1.5). A child who ceases to attend high school prior to graduation and later reenrolls is entitled to support upon reenrollment and until the end of the month following graduation, but not beyond age twenty-one.

(b) (I) If the court finds that it is appropriate for the parents to contribute to the costs of a program of postsecondary education, then the court shall terminate child support and enter an order requiring both parents to contribute a sum determined to be reasonable for the education expenses of the child, taking into account the resources of each parent and the child. In determining the amount of each parent's contribution to the costs of a program of postsecondary education for a child, the court shall be limited to an amount not to exceed the amount listed under the schedule of basic child support obligations in paragraph (b) of subsection (10) of this section for the number of children receiving postsecondary education. The amount of contribution which each parent is ordered to pay pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be subtracted from the amount of each parent's gross income, respectively, prior to calculating the basic child support obligation for any remaining children pursuant to subsection (10) of this section. In no case shall the court issue orders providing for both child support and postsecondary education to be paid for the same time period for the same child regardless of the age of the child. Either parent or the child may move for such an order at any time before the child attains the age of twenty-one years. Either a child seeking an order for postsecondary education expenses or on whose behalf postsecondary education expenses are sought, or the parent from whom the payment of postsecondary education expenses are sought, may request that the court order the child and such parent to seek mediation prior to a hearing on the issue of postsecondary education expenses. Mediation services shall be provided in accordance with section 13-22-305, C.R.S. The court may order the parties to seek mediation if the court finds that mediation is appropriate. Postsecondary education includes college and vocational education programs. If such an order is entered, the parents shall contribute to the total sum determined by the court in proportion to their adjusted gross incomes as defined in subparagraph (II) of paragraph (a) of subsection (10) of this section. The order for postsecondary education support may not extend beyond the earlier of the child's twenty-first birthday or the completion of an undergraduate degree. The court may order the support paid directly to the educational institution, to the child, or in such other fashion as is appropriate to support the education of the child. If the child resides in the home of one parent while attending school or during periods of time in excess of thirty days when school is not in session, the court may order payments from one parent to the other for room and board until the child attains the age of nineteen. A child shall not be considered emancipated solely by reason of living away from home while in postsecondary education.




>In fact the courts prefer it that way and only act when they
>do have l=egal jurisdiction and it is in the best interest of
>the child.

They also act on cases in which both parents are fit and the issues are beyond deterining the needs of the chidlren. In such cases they impose a standard of living that exceeds the child's needs, and more than usual reduces the child's ability to less than meaningful time with their own parent.


>If there is evidence that a parent is not providing the
>minimum care for a child than it is the obligation of the
>court to step in.  The minimum care is established by the
>community.  

That minimum care is a standard of living that exceeds the child's needs. It is also worth to note that those same type "minimum care" is not guaranteed to wards of the state, nor children in the care of their married parents. Please show me where the state is granted authority to impsoe such standards of living.

>Whatever happend to the "fit parents"  Here is a case where
>you wanted the parents to decide what financial level of
>support is appropriate yet you yourself state it does not
>happen.

Geesh, I don't know where you came up with that. All I was saying is that there are situations, albeit very rare, in which parents feel guilty about the amount of money being paid to them, since they know it exceeds the needs of their child. So, they return it to the obligor. Again, a trip to Tahiti is more probable.

>The court does not tell the parent how to spend the CS but
>simoply states it is for the benefit of the child.  Whatever
>happened to that fit parent.  Now they are going to Tahiti.
>The court certainly did not dictate that they go instead of
>buying food or clothing.  If the other parent had
>documentation that the child was suffering because available
>money was not being spent on them than that is an issue that
>could be brought to court.

Simply stating that the money is presumed to be for the benefit of the child does not make it so. The trip to Tahiti was with the child's standard of living, which they are not required to spend, but you are so quick to defend. If the child is not suffering the NCP has no claim to the court. Are you aware of ANY case in which the NCP was succesful in showing that the child's needs were being provided for, but the standard of living provided was not suitable? Regardless, there is no valid state interest, other than defrauding the feds out of welfare money, to impose a standard of living for children upon any parent. Please show me where any other state interest that applies. Heretofore, you have not done so.


>child collection does not determine the formula they simply
>enforce the regulations.

Man, that was weak, I expected better.

>Then court in its infinite wisdom or lack thereof made this
>decision upon the mother's request, documentation and
>arguments in comparison to your own.  This was apparently a
>case that illistrates my point.  The mother and father did not
>agree yet both parents were essentially fit so the court was
>asked to intervene.  the fact that it did not go your way does
>not change the fact that the court had an obligation and every
>firth to make the decision.  I do not see a court teling my
>wife and I how to spend time with our son.  The court gets
>involved when it is asked.

Wow! Both parents are fit. The law defines a substantial amount of time. There is no logical reason to deny a fit parent and their child the ability to share meaningful or substantial time with each other, regardless of the desires of an objecting parent. What on earth would make anyone think that both parents should have to agree that the other be afforded a substantial amount of time with their kid? That is an inalienable right that parents assume when the child is born.

One parent might ask the court to intervene over bedtimes, diets, friends and acquaintacnes held by the child, social activities, or any number of other things. But, unless they can show that the child is harmed by those conditions, then the court has no authority to act. It doesn't matter that the parents disagree - so what? Unless the parent can show that a substantial amount of time with the other parent is harmful to the child, then it is the court's duty allow the child to benefit from that interaction. I'm willing to compare results for children who are allowed to share substantial time with both parents to their counter-parts who are denied that ability. The most important thing a parent can be for there child is THERE.