want all answers possible

[POC]

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.

[cinb85]

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!!!

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!

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

Good luck to all of you!

[POC]

>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!

[cinb85]

Bottom line is that we both agree that both parents should support the children!

If my ex was part of our DD's life and spent time with her, the lack of CS wouldn't bother me quite as much.  But this is a man who has ignored our DD for 14 years and only pays CS when he is arrested.  
I also wish that my ex would help our DD develop a relationship with her siblings, but he just doesn't seem to care.  All he cares about is getting high and partying with women while his children suffer because he doesn't help out!

Thanks for not posting nasty responses.  We both have a right to our opinions and seems to me that even though we don't agree on everything, we do agree that the children are what's important.

Again, good luck to you!

[POC]

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.

[leon clugston]

you missed the part in there for the intent, The intent was for the agency to generate more revenue, its is not just money owed to the state that they get kckibacks for, they get it for revenue collected wholely, not just money owed in dirrect to the state, also when an obligee receives monies from an obligor,( you should look up the deffinitions of these words) then that person recieving is still nothing more than a third party beneficuary. Anytime the goverment creates a program we the reciever are nothing more than third party beneficiuary's.What most people dont know about is the contractual,cooperative agreements between the judges and the state agency, and that the judges has to rule in favor of the agency, there are thousands of cases if presented in front of a federal court correctly that would instantly be turned if the people knew half of what is going on.
The intent of the system isquestionable,how we arrived to get it is treasonous, but what it has become is even more disturbing.

[cinb85]

Because he admitted to his heroin usage a couple of years ago, he has court-ordered supervised visits.  But...he has NEVER exercised his visitation.

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 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.  Now....if the father supports that second child and does everything he can (like most fathers) do for the first child, then I would agree to a small reduction in child support.  We all make decisions that we have to deal with.  If I make a decision to have another child, then it is my responsibility to provide for that child.  If my ex decides to father more children, then it is HIS responsibility to support those children.  

But, don't get me wrong, I don't want to see ANY of his children suffer.
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 guess it's my bad luck that my ex turned out to be an unfit parent.
But I refuse to let our daughter suffer for it!  I do eveything that I can for her!

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!

One good thing that came out of all of this is that I've become a very strong woman and I hope that my daughter becomes a strong woman as well so she doesn't have to put up with people like my ex!

[POC]

>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.

[POC]

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.

[leon clugston]

the money they receive back is of greater than just computers and software,and it is not just the state, it concieves of the courts, vtal statistics, office of children services, division of motor vehicles, which include man hours attibuted as well for refund. The various states are all the states, period, if they recieve in funding under title IV-d IV-b or IV-a they have the cooperative agreements. An obligor is a fiction in law, its a creation of a debt, but how does one justify the defineing of a child as a legal debt. Youre application of creating a non- and custodial paying does kinda happen as is, two things to it, Alaska doesn't care who the custodian is, the one who makes more money is the one who pays, child or not in care, the other part, why in the hell should the administrative state get any dam money at all for peoples children. This is the wonders of attaining the social security number,the goverment created benefit that makes all citizens denaturalized of there inherent standing, and turns them into third party beneficuarys without any saying.
But thats just my knowledgable opinion.There is no equity when administrative states take monies from citizens by force and without any legal cause or standing.