What do you think of this letter?

[POC]

1) Please clarify what you are asking about regarding "cash poor" - Sorry, I just don't want to respond to something that is not what you meant.

2) Fixed costs are a percentage to be determined by the Legislature. In my example, I used 40% as an example. That becomes the rebuttable presumption for fixed costs. If you can prove to a judge why a "big ass house" is in the best interests of your child, so be it. Of course, doing so would mean that it would probably be in the child's best interests to allocate that type of money at the other home too. I'd be happy to clarify this further if you would like. But, I think it is kind of self-explanatory.

3) Calculating net pay is for legislative determination too. Your questions about manipulating net incomes are well taken. Personally, I could see justification for disallowing a self reserve to be taken if one were to deduct pension plans. But, now you're getting more anal than even I am.

4) I am unclear about your question regarding "stay at home parents". If they are earning money, then that money would be considered. Hence, the parents would share the financial burden proportionate to their incomes as shown in the formula; thereby there would be no "free ride". However, if the STAH parent continued to do so in the same manner as in the marriage, then the parents would continue to share the financial burden in the same proportionate way.

5) The definition of a mathematically valid formula is that it can be tested for validity at any point of the spectrum. If you want to argue the point, take it up with Pythagoras, Einstein, Newton, or your nearest middle school Algebra teacher. But, when the basic formula can't even be applied to the simplest points to check for validity it shows how perverse the formula is.

I hope you feel better. Take care of that headache.

[POC]

I understand how you might not be up on CA, since you are from NC. So, reading about Bobby Sherill would be good for you. Bobby was arrested in Fayettville less than 24 hours after returning home from being held captive in Iraq. His crime was that he failed to pay child support while he was held captive those four months.

http://host63.ipowerweb.com/~gachilds/files/Deadbeat%20Dads.pdf

You hardly have to cross the country to see how screwed up the current system is. Children deserve much better. Children deserve to be allowed meaningful time with each of their parents. Chldren also deserve to have their basic needs provided for at each of their homes.

[cathy]

I didn't see anything about Bobby Sherill on that page.  And I never said the system WASN'T screwed up......but there has to be some system I'm sure you would agree.  And unfortunately, as with any system that large, you are going to have screw ups.  I can only hope that this one was corrected quickly.  But again, I will say that I still think income shares model makes a lot more sense than some of the other methods.  Never sais it was perfect - I doubt a perfect system will ever exist - but it is better than some.

Also, this has strayed FAR beyond the original intent of the post starting this thread.  It has at least stayed pretty much on the topic of child support though.  But now you are throwing in "meaningful time".  While that is important, it is a separate topic.  

Actually though - I am interested.  Do you think there is should be some relationship between "visitation" and child support - other than the obvious one where the amount of time spent with each parent is taken into account in calculating child support.

And yes, 50/50 would be ideal - - but it just won't work for every situation.  Hell, for that matter, the ideal would be no need for divorce.  I've always thought birth control was ass backwards.  You should have to get a pill in order to BECOME pregnant, not to prevent it.

[cathy]

I hope we aren't taking up too much space on the board.  I am enjoying this discussion and do consider many of your points valid.  

I think the confusion on the first 2 points was my assumption that the fixed costs would be related to actual costs.  When you say "percentage", are you referring to a percentage of salary, or a percentage of the fixed costs?  And again, we are somewhat back in the same boat as to determining what that percentage should be.   Who is to dictate what a "big ass house" is, what a reasonable cost for a house is, what percentage of your salary is reasonable to spend toward a house (or other fixed costs)?

In both 2 and 3, you say it is for legislative determination.   I'm not sure exactly what group you would be referring to, and why they would do any better a job that the judicial branch did.

For number 4, you seem to be saying that if there was a STAH parent before the divorce, they should have the option to remain a STAH parent and the total financial responsibility fall to the other parent.  I just don't buy that and I don't see it as being fair.  The decision to be a STAH parent during the marriage is a mutual decision - it shouldn't resort to a unilateral decision after the divorce,

Number 5 I would have to go back and read the posts - and it is bedtime!

But that should be enough to continue our discussion!  Thanks

[POC]

I believe his article was on like the 2nd or 3rd page in that link.

I believe "visitation" is something that was intended for jails and hospitals. Unless a parent is in one of those, I don't believe children should have visitation.

I am a very practical person. Therefore, I would never say that things ought to always be 182/183 one year and 183/182 the next. But, equal parenting time should be the point from which all arrangements are started from, unless of course, parental wrong-doing is apparent to a judge that he/she determines that spending time with that parent would be detrimental to the child.

No, I don't think there should be a relationship between CS and "time sharing", other than the formula for determining the amount of support. I have heard the argument that support should be withheld by the court until a parent makes their child accessible to the other. But, personally, I believe that those parents should just be put in jail for contempt of court. If judges were swift to do so, more kids would get to see their parents.

As far as the original post, we haven't even gotten past the first issue. It should be apparent that sending the letter would not be helpful.

[POC]

The USDA does an annual survey of costs associated with raising children. Interestingly, pond scum sucking leaches (let me know if you think I mince words too much) such as Robert Williams and Policy Stuides, Inc. prefer to base CS on other factors, such as tobacco and alcohol consumption. These companies collect anywhere from 30% - 40% of how much they collect, sometimes more. In FL, one company was paid over $2.2 Million to collect $5,867 in child support. It's a good gig if you can get it.

Sorry, back to fixed costs. The percentage (determined by the legislature) is of the amount of money in the USDA tables. If you go back and apply the formula again you will probably see it. The reason I say it should be left up to the legislature is because there are some items that are a judgement/values call, such as clothing. Obviously, a kid needs a coat in the winter, regardless of which home he/she happens to be at. But, some of those items can move between homes. So, the legislature needs to provide the courts some direction as to their intent of those type items (courts are not authorized to legislate). Equally as imortant, this shows the court how applying the guideliens in a particular case may or may not be inappropriate. This Due Process requirement in federal statute is absent in current guidelines.

As you know, federal statutes require each state to update and revise their guidelines at least every 4 years. But, those statutes also require that the guidelines have a rebuttable presumption. But, there is nothing to rebutt, because the guidelines do not say what they are intended for. Example, if a parent had to drive 300 miles each way to see his kid, there is nothing in the guidelines to rebutt to show that the guidelines did not already take this circumstance into account. Any deviation a judge made from current guidelines to account for the extraordinary travel would be arbitrary. Who is to say whether the guidelines account for 15 miles per week or 350? The USDA gives an amount for travel, and each parent would be able to show if that amount was not appropriate for their particular case - Again as is required by federal statute.

[MYSONSDAD]

You wrote exactly how I feel about visitation and support issues. Well explained. Sometimes my brain is mush...

I think that if both parnets walked into a Family Court on equal ground, there would be a lot less conflict. Which I feel, is better for the children.

"Children learn what they live"

[cathy]

at the site.

And I'm in agreement with most of what you said in this post.  I'm not fond of the term "visitation" either, which is why I put it in quotes.  But it does at least convey the meaning, albeit with negative connotations.

But I still very much disagree that sending the letter would not be helpful.  As in all things, it depends on the situation.  I have to trust that this woman knows her situation and her ex better than we do.  I also know that if my husband's ex had ever sent such a letter, it would have been amazingly welcome.  

[cathy]

And again, I don't like the term "visitation".

Initially, I thought - "yeah, that would be good.  For both parents to start out on equal ground".

Then I began to think - but things are never equal.  Parents are individuals and differ.  No two sides, situations or people are equal.  The amount of time each parent has spent with the child, the amount of time they are willing to spend with the child, their parenting skills, their income, etc etc etc  - none of these things are equal.  And perhaps some of them should not be considered, but some of them should.

Now - perhaps starting off equal and going from there.....but isn't that what we are SUPPOSE to have now?  I thought that at least most states claim that they don't show preference to either gender - except maybe for small children with the "Tender Years" crap.  

So, I guess in an ideal world, this would work.  But in an ideal world, we wouldn't need it.  Realism bites!

I wish I had the answers - but I'm not even sure of all the questions.  But I know that whatever system is in place, there will always be flaws - and their will always be people that disagree with parts of it and think it is unfair.

[cathy]

"Pond scum sucking leaches"!!  

Interesting information - and I'm looking forward to digesting it a bit more, maybe doing a little research.  Unfortunately, it is Monday and back to work.  Typically I would do both this and my job, but I've been out of the office and need to catch up.

Thank you again for this discussion - definitely food for thought and I have learn new things!

The key I think maybe as you say - some items are judgement/value calls.  I think that sums up things nicely as to why there will never be a method that is agreed by all as being good, fair, and/or equitable.

Just tossing this out - haven't really thought it thru - - - but how does this work when the parents live far apart?  Any adjustments for that winter coat that may not be needed at one parent's house, but i at the others?  Any adjustment for the different cost of living in the different towns?  Etc etc etc (like I said - tossing without thinking thru - so be gentle! )   :-)