want all answers possible

[blueskies]

>It wouldn't bother me as much that my ex gets a reduction of
>CS for our daughter if he were TRULY taking care of his
>children, but he doesn't.  He has 7 children and he doesn't
>take care of any of them!
>
>I KNOW that there are many good dads out there who end up
>getting screwed by the CPs who are money-hungry!  I have seem
>it first hand!
>I'm just saying that it's not fair that my ex gets our
>daughter's CS lowered everytime that he fathers another child
>(especially since he isn't taking care of those other
>children).  
Here is the way I think it is looked at with the first kids' support coming first:

Someone put it to me this way one time, and it made sense.

If you bought a car and were paying the lender a certain amount per month for the car, then you went and bought a second car, do you think the lender for the first car is going to allow you to reduce the monthly payment for it so you can afford to also make payments for the second car? If you are acquiring the second car, it is assumed that you can afford both of them.

The same with having children...if you are having another one, it should be assumed that you can afford both the ones you already have (without reducing support to them) plus the subsequent ones.

 

[Genie]

I don't really care about all of the legals stuff that is posted about it being unconstitutional etc and why the states want it collected etc etc.

And this is coming from someone who has helped write the check when married to XH and someone who should be receiving a check (and never has!!):

CS is the help support the children.  Plain and simple. Children are expensive. It takes 2 to make the child and it should take 2 to support the child and make sure the child has what is need: decent roof over head in safe neighborhood with good to very good schools, clothes and shoes and coats etc, food on the table to eat 3 times a day.

I'm not talking about how it is actually used. We all know some use it for things that aren't meant to.  I mean providing the children's needs so they can have a good life with what is needed.  

As stated, I don't receive it and am fortunate to be able to give my girls what they need without it. If I did receive it, I would put it in an account for them to buy what they need with it and to help for extras I can't give them now. Anything left over when turns 18 could go towards what they need for college or car whatever.

What I don't understand it why the legality etc has to be discussed. Why is it so wrong to support your children? Many wouldn't give a dime if not "forced" to. Heck, many don't even when "forced" to. I do believe many pay way too much money in CS. I don't think 2 children need $500-1000 each month. Shoot, I am only to get $290 and some of that is his portion of the insurance I provide. I think that is somewhat fair of an amount for CS for 2 children without the insurance included.

I think all this talk of agencies and government etc etc only is to circumnavigate the fact that each parent should support their children. How do you think that would happen if CS is not ordered? Do you think most would willing fork over 1/2 of what is spent a month if not? Some months could be cheap but those spring and fall clothes months could be quite expensive!!!

[Genie]

B/c I am one of those in the same boat as you.  And my XH doesn't support his kids either.  And I can totally justify the CS he is supposed to pay and more each month.  Formula, baby food, diapers, food for OD, clothes, school, home. It all adds up.  His small amount that is for CS a month ($290 is CS +102 for insurance. Not much actually for CS for 2 kids a month) doens't even cover 1/2 of those costs a month.

Also, in any family, you shouldn't have more unless you can afford more.  My sister would love another child but can't afford to have 3.  Plain and simple. Support the ones you have before you have more that you can't support!!!!

All the mumbo jumbo government crap only is those who don't want to support their children justifying why they shouldn't have too!!!!

Why is it so bad to help give your children what they need? Or do you just not like being told that you have to do it?

[Genie]

but what that have to do with the need for BOTH parents to support their children?

How do you think it should be done?  If I were your ex wife, would you really pay 1/2 everytime I handed you a receipt?  You would just love the bill for this week with 2 sick kids in the house.  I spent a small fortune on diapers, pedialyte (the generic version) and food for the brat diet to try to prevent them from exploding through their diaper everytime I gave them something to eat and drink.  Or when I hand you the bill for clothes for spring and summer b/c OD needs a whole new wardrobe b/c she wont fit in 1/8 of her clothes from last year and baby needs 1/2 a wardrobe b/c most of what I had saved from OD isn't the right size. Even scrimping on under $15 items addes up really fast for both kids.

What would happen is that the NCP would decide if he/she thought the children needed this and decide they don't so he/she would say NO and say I'm not paying for something I don't think he needs - 5 outfits is enough, do laundry more often. Then are you going to contribute to my higher water bill? And what about food? How would it be decided what was for the kids and what was for me?

It doesn't matter how you slice and dice it up, it isn't going to work anyway you try to do it.  So hey, in me and cinb's case, I guess we don't have to worry b/c no CS means no conflict about it right?

[Genie]

How would you get the money? would you have to spend it first then get reimbursed? For families that don't have much, that could be desaterous. And who would buy what? both could go out buy clothes to ge the money then return them to keep the money for themselves.

And who would oversee this? I mean both can't have free reign on the acocunt.  My XH would be thrilled b/c it would then become his drinking money if he could get it anytime he wanted. I don't think there is enough people that could be hired to keep track of the accounts and what it is spent on.

Good idea in theory but how would you make it work. And what if one parent doesn't contribute to the account but uses it for the chidren's "needs" when at that person's house? Then in my case, I would be supporting mine and X's household. Might as well have stayed married to him then.

[leon clugston]

I find it disturbing that you dont care about the constitutionality of the program or any other part, however that is a right on everyones part to not agree, and a very good right, just remember the right to agree or disagree w/ anyone or anything is only preserved under the constitution.

My own personal standing is from the standpoint of a CUSTODIAL parent forced to pay another who wished not to work and the judge openly said, (HE shall pay because he is a productive member of sociaety) not in the best interest of the child I would have to say, against the federal law and the state plan and cooperative agreements that the judges and the courts and the DOL, and CSSD have all agreed to abide by.

There is no wrong in supporting youre chidren my other posts have specificaly said that, the wrong comes from individuals w/ a pecuinary enterest in the case, for which they get incentives and bonuses for increasing the amounts regaurdless if they are in equity or not.Under the common law it was well established that parents were to nuture and support there children, and when of age and time children were to nuture and support there parents. Now we have AGENCYs telling what we can and cannot do, when they have no authority, there not judicial, they hold judicial authority, and there power is very limited executive power, there are fact finders nothing more. We have courts makeing LAWS, there's no power, laws are preserved to the executive side of the branch only, courts are judicial, the constitution is clear courts are to rule on the law only, not make law.

There is no circumnavigating going on, not by the citizens at least.
There is no right to child support, its not created under the rights, it is a legilsative created gratuity, the issue I presented was not about support but the means acquired by the goverment to enforce it, and that is the insult upon all, custodial non custodial and the children.When we as people get over the wants and desires for others to always take care of us then we as a whole can see what realy has happened.

[Genie]

however, how do you think this should all be handled?  Once parents get divorced how should it be decided that the children are taken care of?

I know the joint is the ideal but in many cases (mine and cinb's for 2) that is not possible.  So then what do you do?  Is it fair for children to live in poverty b/c one parent decides he/she doesn't have any responsiblity and the other parent must struggle to do it all?  It is not the child's fault the parents got divorced!!!! In an ideal world everyone would stay married and never divorce but unfortunately that is not today's world.

So it may not be in the constitution, but alot of laws etc are not in the constitution either.  We can't let our children fall through the cracks b/c they aren't protected in the constitution. When it was written, divorce was a horrible thing and hardly happened.  

[leon clugston]

Divorce is the unfortunate result of a sociey that has forgotten its values. There is no doubt situations where there is no other alternative but divorce, however today it is used by many, not all, but as a resolve to there own unhappiness. Children should never be in poverty, but what we have created is for most a twisted system that very few realy understand what the overall objective is, and how in its creation set us out side of are staus and beleifs that had founded this country.There is always ways to make the system better, but to lgislate all into it and to deprive so many including children from there fundamental rights for purposes to generate revenue in so many minds, including mine, creats a distrusts and hate that will always be in conflict w/ the system, and cannot no ever be in harmony. The goverment cannot nor ever was permitted to contract w/ the courts or issue contracts against the citizens, and this is what has happened, it is an insult upon the people and the constitution for which the great country was founded on, and relies on if it is truely to seperate itself from socialism and communism of other counties, for which have always contended we are against. There is no simple solution, but to create simple solutions something has to give and rights created the people I dont beleive should be one of them. The common law was straight and simple, due to beucracy and administrative BS it has pretty much been abolished, here in Alaska the legislature openly admmits it has, if there is no common law, and only civil law(Roman law) then is there realy any constitution or rights?
But this is only my opinion/ with others but still a minority.

[wysiwyg]

I have not read all these posts but I want to add my three cents.

#1.  I am a child of divorce where my fahter got custody of me, my mother was never ordered nor paid any cs to my fahter.

#2. I have three kids by my first husband.  When we divorced the court did not order ANY cs to me for these children, I asked him simply to send what he could when he could and I would never ask for money from him.  Consequently, he let the house I left in our name he let it go back to the bank and never saw the kids again.  The last phone call from him was that he did not give a F*** about the kids.  That was 11 years ago.  My current husband adopted all three kids.

#3.  I always wondered how cs worked as in the case of an intact home that loses a parent to death, does not get any cs to continue to support the child in the means he is accustomed to.  Like the parent who's husband was injured they had to adjust to the different means of living to accomodate the lesser income.  Using this scenerio and the above I have long felt that we as humans have to do waht we have to do and not to extort money from the other parent which  usually leaves the NCP or Non residential parent living in squander and doing without many means to supoprt his / her child.  Thats robbing Peter to pay Paul.  

#4.  Under a court order how can the prosecutor seize and freeze funds from our retirement?  The situation was this; hubby lsot job, filed for CS mod, heard in court, court took THREE AND ONE HALF YEARS to render an order, severly putting us behind in cs support.  Once the order was filed with the court, specifying a weekly amount and a weekly amount towards the arrearage - the cs was paid on time every week for 5 years, then lo and behold the prosecuotr comes along adn seizes our funds becase as they said "we can do what we want" - the bottom line was that during this time my job was only 9 months out of the year I was currently off work, hubby making little we were adjusting to the new income, and told the prosecuotor that this was going to force us out of out apartment with a child as we could not pay rent, and that we had followed the courts orders for 5 years and when did the prosecutors order take precidence over a judges court order, their response was that "we don't care"  - a call to the state agency stated to me that the child of the first marraige was their businees and they did not care about the children of the second marriage, that only the first child had "rights".  I wish to heaven I had gotten that on tape!

#5.  Lastly - I have a real problem with the courts imputing money that "COULD" be made.  How can a court base an order on the unknown?  I always thought that court had to have FACTS to find an order, our court orders usually say "FINDINGS OF FACT".......I am sure if we all coud find that golden job where we can be secure with benefits and retirement and a comfortable lifestyle, I am sure we would be doing so. But to pay child suport based  on a 60,000/year job when you make 20,000 bacasue of a sucky economy and bacause as in our case we CHOSE to stay in teh vicinity to see the child and be involved in his life, takes 50% of hubby's income a week.  

Now I ask - is any of this fair?  Life brings us many challenges, we adapt, we go on.  As my Army Sgt daughter says, suck it up and move on.  Sometimes thatis all I can do.  There is little left to fight with, no money and little energy.

[POC]

>How would you get the money?

Each parents pays the state, just as NCP's do now. The state would send the check to the other parent.


>For families that don't have much, that
>could be desaterous.

Currently, many families with NCP's don't have much money, but are still forced to pay.

>And who would buy what?

Parents would spend money at their discretion, just as they do now. One issue at a time.

>And who would oversee this? I mean both can't have free reign
>on the acocunt.

Each would maintain their own accounts - see above.

>Good idea in theory but how would you make it work.

It is unbelievably simple. You collect checks from both parents, so that each parent shares financial responsibility for their child, while not at their home as well as when they are under their direct care.

>And what if one parent doesn't contribute to the account but uses it
>for the chidren's "needs" when at that person's house?

If a parent doesn't contribute their share, then they get dealt with just as they do now. Again, not trying to reinvent teh wheel.