A must read for the ignorant

[olanna]

I've been on both sides of this coin, in two separate states. I can say and offer my experience, that the courts have much more understanding to those receiving child support than to those that are paying it.

Of course, every dime they collect goes towards the states "at a boy" award, (and many are matched with a percentage to aid in collecting, which directly reflects in higher salaries for those handling the money, etc...true story).

So why not have those really high awards?  IF they collect on them, it looks great.  And if they don't??? They can raise the flag and say.."oh we have to get this taken care of for the children.  We have to collect the monies owed from these dead beats...the children are suffering!!!!"

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

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

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

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

I have raised four kids. I also took in foster kids (at my own expense) and I can tell you, it simply DOES NOT take more than $500 a month to raise a child.  (And I am talking a child that is NOT in day care without special needs).  We all have to live somewhere and we all have to pay for the power we use, the water we use and the food we eat. I live in CA, and I have a 12 year son that is still at home. I can tell you, he lives well.  And it does not cost thousands of dollars a month to raise him.

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

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

[mistoffolees]

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

Any evidence that this really happens?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not at minimum sustenance levels.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[olanna]

Are you really a man? Your profile says you are but you could be my wife in law speaking!