A story to rip your heart out and inform...

[speciallady]

forget about the children--on both sides.

I'm wondering why you're defending this obviously flawed system?
In CA, both parents are responsible for supporting the children. But it's way too easy to cheat the system and I'll say, on both sides.
I've sat in on many many hearings and let me tell you, child support is rarely about the children.

What is your experience?

[KAT]

The states know how much it takes to raise a child as they pay it out monthly in welfare benefits. In most states that's $325 a month for one, a second one will get you an extra $25.00. Why should the CP get ANY more then HALF of what is already standard? If CP's can't afford to contribute their share, then perhaps custody needs to be given to the parent who CAN finanically afford to raise them. Think of how far the welfare rolls would drop & how much less taxes we would have to pay....I'm just saying. You say it takes $500+ plus to rasie a child in CA? So then the NCP's share is around $250 right??? OR are you saying that only the NCP should be finanically responsible? OR are you saying that it really takes 1k a month? Hmmmm

Don't worry, your CS will end someday soon. With any luck you'll get to sit back & watch Karma come around to bite the ex....it's been 2 years since the last one emancipated, our biohags life just gets better & better. Hahahahaha She has a myspace page, trust me, I haven't had such laughs in a long time!

KAT

[Kitty C.]

...'doesn't want to' and 'can't'.  I would venture to say that many NCP's on this site who are fighting in court about CS are doing so because their financial circumstances have changed and they cannot meet the obligation the court originally ordered for them.

Sure, kids can certainly get used to a certain lifestyle, but 'life' has a tendency to get in the way sometimes.  My own personal experience as a child and as an adult can attest to that.  So when you're not financially able to support a child 'in the manner they are accustomed' (personally, I hate that tripe), you change how you do things and you let the extras go and concentrate on the essentials.

Which is why I have never allowed DS or SS 'get used to' a certain lifestyle, even though there are times we certainly could have afforded it.  It's been good lessons for them, too........it has taught them that the bottom can drop anytime and you may have to tighten your belt and do without some extras for a while.  It's no different than, as a child on the farm, apparently my parents were doing very well, but I never visibly saw a difference in how we lived.  There weren't more Christmas presents, better toys, and more places to go and do things.  Thank God my parents saved all that, because a few years later, the farm market bottomed out and we could have been a statistic, but we managed to actually live, not just survive.

But I guess the cost of living has dramatically increased in the last 14 years in CA.  I had no problem supporting DS as an infant and toddler out there up until 1993, and I would wager that my income was pretty close to poverty level.  Sometimes you have to be creative, but my son never went without and neither did I.  And I know I only made about $1200 a month then.

[olanna]

"biohag"...geeze, that ranks right up there with my wife in law!!!

Very very funny!

[olanna]

Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has money for the casinos!

[mistoffolees]

>Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has money
>for the casinos!

It's really rather pathetic that every time you lose an argument you accuse me of being someone I'm not.

How about sticking to the arguments instead of the silly ad-hominem attacks?

[reagantrooper]

>>Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has
>money
>>for the casinos!
>
>It's really rather pathetic that every time you lose an
>argument you accuse me of being someone I'm not.
>
>How about sticking to the arguments instead of the silly
>ad-hominem attacks?

I have not posted in a very long time. I have been reading some of your post and it is clear to me as an "outsider" what you are all about. By chance did you have the "name" Sunshine on another divorce type forum? I hope like hell this board has not taken on the side or the stand of that other site.

[mistoffolees]

>>>Just do anything and say anything to make sure she has
>>money
>>>for the casinos!
>>
>>It's really rather pathetic that every time you lose an
>>argument you accuse me of being someone I'm not.
>>
>>How about sticking to the arguments instead of the silly
>>ad-hominem attacks?
>
>I have not posted in a very long time. I have been reading
>some of your post and it is clear to me as an "outsider" what
>you are all about. By chance did you have the "name" Sunshine
>on another divorce type forum? I hope like hell this board has
>not taken on the side or the stand of that other site.

No, I don't.

And what is it that I'm 'all about'?

I simply expect that:
1. Parents should support their children
2. People who advocate ignoring the system can cause great harm to others
3. The system is not perfect, but it works well most of the time IF you work with it rather than fight it
4. Child custody is a serious matter and I don't believe in DIY solutions.

If you don't like any of those positions, I really don't care. I do care when people attack me for bogus reasons like accusing me of being someone else (as you are doing) rather than discussing the facts involved.

[mistoffolees]

>...'doesn't want to' and 'can't'.  I would venture to say
>that many NCP's on this site who are fighting in court about
>CS are doing so because their financial circumstances have
>changed and they cannot meet the obligation the court
>originally ordered for them.
>

I have no problem at all with that. If circumstances change, then support needs to be reconsidered.

I'm objecting to various people who are arguing against state ordered child support in general and those who seem to be able to afford to support their children, but don't want to pay anything more than subsistence amounts - just because they don't like their ex handling the money.

[mistoffolees]

>forget about the children--on both sides.

Since when? Do you think that inflammatory comments makes your argument magically become true?

How about some facts and statistics?

>
>I'm wondering why you're defending this obviously flawed
>system?

'Obviously flawed'? Nonsense. The system is not perfect, but it works reasonably well most of the time. But feel free to:
a. Prove that the system fails most of the time
and
b. Provide a better system.

Until you can do those things, you're blowing smoke.

>In CA, both parents are responsible for supporting the
>children. But it's way too easy to cheat the system and I'll
>say, on both sides.

It's possible to cheat ANY system. The fact that the system is occasionally beaten doesn't mean the system should be discarded. How about some evidence rather than just whining?

>I've sat in on many many hearings and let me tell you, child
>support is rarely about the children.

Evidence?

>
>What is your experience?

A parent paying a great deal of child support as well as an active reader on the subject. That doesn't make me an expert, but it entitles me to my opinion. My observation is that the system works most of the time, but I'm open to evidence otherwise.

So feel free to provide evidence other than just whining about the 'terrible system'.