As an NCP, do you feel that child support orders are just and fair in your case and that no matter what, the CP's lifestyle should be maintained for the sake of the children?

[olanna]

Accurate 4 year old data.....cripes.

[mistoffolees]

>Accurate 4 year old data.....cripes.

That's the latest that's available.

When are you going to provide ANY data to back up your position?

[Stirling]

but sorry you missed the boat again.


Your so called study merely proves that child support is paid 89% of the time.  Payment is no indication that the current systems is working correctly or effectively.  Your study does nothing to prove that the child support paid is directly related to the actual costs of supporting a child.  Your study also doesn't prove that the child support paid is actually spent on the support of the child.  

All you have done is prove my point that child support is merely a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other.  The current system is flawed at it's very core.

A system that truly worked would have checks and balances to ensure the amounts paid bore a direct relationship to actual expenses, and a requirement that the amounts paid are to be spent on the child's direct expenses.  Accountability would also be required.  This assumes that the true intention of the systems is to ensure that the child will be supported rather than to merely line the pockets of one parent.  

[Stirling]

"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to back their claim that the entire system needs to be discarded."

That is a bold faced lie!

I have provided you with state statutes which is more authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution of wealth.  

All your study shows is that 89% of the time that redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to prove that the system works to ensure that children will be supported.

I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was set up to accomplish?


I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to comment on.  

[Stirling]

What's even worse is that most state's child support guidelines are even older than that, and have no direct relationship to the actual expenses of raising a child.  

[speciallady]

because you obviously haven't.

You approached this subject a bit ago when I posted my initial thread about support and interest in CA--you, at first, defended the system based on your own experience, (rightly so) and then did your research. You asked for facts and data to back up my claims and I told you to research for yourself. In this internet age, you can google anything to fit your needs (hence my research I posted).

CA would NOT have a BILLION dollar debt for arrears if your system worked.
You've skipped over so many facts from real folks on here. You state the system is flawed and not perfect but that's just a cop-out. AS is your statement, "If you pay attention to the data and don't read too much into it..."
OY--you just back-tracked again.

I'll say this again--while the system you are currently defending is working for you at this time, (if this is true), I sure hope you never ever get sick, see a period of umemployment, etc....because you will be back here seeking advice from the very people you have
 been nasty to-me included. Re-read some of your posts to me. I have yet to return the comments.

[mistoffolees]

>"No one has refuted my evidence or even provided evidence to
>back their claim that the entire system needs to be
>discarded."
>
>That is a bold faced lie!
>
>I have provided you with state statutes which is more
>authoritative than your so called study.  These statutes
>clearly show that the law does nothing to ensure that children
>will be supported.  The law merely requires a redistribution
>of wealth.  

How do state statutes show that the system is not working? How do they show that children are not benefiting? How do they show that anyone pays more than they should?

State statues do nothing of the kind. You haven't provided any evidence that the current system is unfair.

>
>All your study shows is that 89% of the time that
>redistribution of wealth is paid.  Your study does nothing to
>prove that the system works to ensure that children will be
>supported.

My data shows that children are getting the court ordered support at least 89% of the time. Now, where's your evidence to support the allegation that the system fails 90% of the time?

>
>I have a question for you, what do you think the systems was
>set up to accomplish?

It was set up to support children. Just how do you do that without distributing money from the NCP to the CP?

The fact that 89% of the time, the court ordered amount of money IS being distributed properly is evidence that the system is working. That money is available to support kids in the CP home.

Granted, there's no guarantee that the money will be used on kids, but since you're the one claiming that the system is broken, you'd have to show evidence that it's not used to support kids. But I can guarantee one thing - if NO money is transferred from the NCP to the CP, then that absolutely guarantees that the support money won't be used to support the kids.


>
>
>I have also suggested a better system which you have yet to
>comment on.  

Where? The only system I've seen suggested is the idea that there should be no enforcement. Sorry, but that's a stupid idea. If there's no enforcement, the amount of money available to the kids will decline - either a lot or a little. There's absolutely no way it can increase.

[mistoffolees]

>because you obviously haven't.
>

Of course I have - and I already commented on it.

That study doesn't say anything about what's fair. It doesn't say anything about what percentage of CSE orders are being paid.

The only data in the study of any relevance is the claim that 20% of obligors have no income - which is close enough to confirm my study which says that 11% of obligors have no income - and which effectively proves my point that lack of income is not a very common reason for support not being paid.

[olanna]

Right back at ya...I haven't seen one person in here besides you make any sort of statement saying the system works well.

So share your "unverifiable anecdotal stories" for the love of the system all you want...it's your time and your opinion, as for the rest of us.

[olanna]

I did. I polled and you saw the results.  Why do you think this board was formed anyway? Cuz everything is working so well?

NOT.