child support when father moves to another country?
in [Divorce]
|
Prev: Managing Children Behaviors Through Humor
Next: learn about the most common cause of diseases in women at http://www.cidpusa.org
From: Bob W on 10 Sep 2008 13:08 "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:059120ad-203a-4d53-85bb-abc60b23dd48(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... On Sep 10, 9:36 am, "Phil" <f...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > ************************************************** > No, it is not uncommon for the 'next man' to come here in defense of a > situation that is fraught with double standards and side with the > legislated sexism that exists in the realm of custody and child support. > Most are simply ignorant, not having been through it themselves and > relying solely on the word of only one of the combatants. You appear to > fall into that category. That's fine and I will respect everybody's opinion here that the current child support system has many problem areas and sides with the mother. I know I have a differing opinion because I came in advocating the collection of child support from a father. I just am having trouble figuring out what type of answer to all this you guys have? Instead of explaining in a rational way what you believe the solutions are, most here are instead engaging in an Ad Hominem attack against me and making up all kinds of fictional scenarios about my situation and trying to turn this into one big Jerry Springer episode. I agree there are many problems with the system. I agree that men often get the short end of the stick. I agree mothers often abuse CS funds and use the system to get a free lunch. But I just don't see how some of the problems can be avoided. To ensure children really benefit from CS payments you would have to hire literaly an army of social workers and government agents to monitor the spending of each CS dollar. The fact is there is just no way to do it. So the next solution is to simply end CS all together and rely on the "free market" system and hope fathers pay their share of what they should. Are you saying that is the ultimate solution? I think we could target problem areas in the CS system (make it easier to adjust father's payments if he loses job, more accurate calculation of fair CS payment, etc) without abandoning CS completely. ======= Here is the problem in a nutshell and the ultimate solution - The courts are gender biased. Mothers get child custody and child support by default. Researchers like Margaret Brinig has discovered there are two strong motivators for women. The first is virtually guaranteed child custody provides a mother with emotional security. The second is the child support guidelines provide a mother with predictable and increasing financial security until the child reaches 18-21 years of age. The solution is to make child custody and the related money exchange less predictable. If women all of a sudden realized they might lose custody and income if their relationships ended this change would alter their behavior. If continuing emotional and financial security were at risk, women would be more willing to make relationships work rather than walk away.
From: auto467016 on 10 Sep 2008 15:57 On Sep 10, 10:08 am, "Bob W" <robe...(a)teleport.com> wrote: > "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:059120ad-203a-4d53-85bb-abc60b23dd48(a)b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 10, 9:36 am, "Phil" <f...(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > > ************************************************** > > No, it is not uncommon for the 'next man' to come here in defense of a > > situation that is fraught with double standards and side with the > > legislated sexism that exists in the realm of custody and child support.. > > Most are simply ignorant, not having been through it themselves and > > relying solely on the word of only one of the combatants. You appear to > > fall into that category. > > That's fine and I will respect everybody's opinion here that the > current child support system has many problem areas and sides with the > mother. I know I have a differing opinion because I came in > advocating the collection of child support from a father. I just am > having trouble figuring out what type of answer to all this you guys > have? Instead of explaining in a rational way what you believe the > solutions are, most here are instead engaging in an Ad Hominem attack > against me and making up all kinds of fictional scenarios about my > situation and trying to turn this into one big Jerry Springer > episode. > > I agree there are many problems with the system. I agree that men > often get the short end of the stick. I agree mothers often abuse CS > funds and use the system to get a free lunch. But I just don't see > how some of the problems can be avoided. To ensure children really > benefit from CS payments you would have to hire literaly an army of > social workers and government agents to monitor the spending of each > CS dollar. The fact is there is just no way to do it. So the next > solution is to simply end CS all together and rely on the "free > market" system and hope fathers pay their share of what they should. > Are you saying that is the ultimate solution? I think we could target > problem areas in the CS system (make it easier to adjust father's > payments if he loses job, more accurate calculation of fair CS > payment, etc) without abandoning CS completely. > > ======= > Here is the problem in a nutshell and the ultimate solution - > > The courts are gender biased. Mothers get child custody and child support > by default. Researchers like Margaret Brinig has discovered there are two > strong motivators for women. The first is virtually guaranteed child > custody provides a mother with emotional security. The second is the child > support guidelines provide a mother with predictable and increasing > financial security until the child reaches 18-21 years of age. > > The solution is to make child custody and the related money exchange less > predictable. If women all of a sudden realized they might lose custody and > income if their relationships ended this change would alter their behavior. > If continuing emotional and financial security were at risk, women would be > more willing to make relationships work rather than walk away. Agreed -- though even if this policy became reality, there would still be *some* divorce. In these remaining cases, some will be involve two fit, willing parents. In those cases, shared parenting, with no exchange of wealth, is the solution. The kids get to benefit from being raised with both parents, and neither parent has a financial incentive (in the form of child "support") to maneuver or manipulate for custody. Kids and families win, but lawyers, judges, marshalls, social workers, state revenue departments -- all these people and the bureaucracy would lose, so they will not let this happen. In the remaining cases, where one parent is clearly unfit, or simply abandons the family without cause -- child support may be appropriate. But it needs to be limited to the actual costs of raising the child, and it needs to be accounted for. When the number of CS cases are limited in number to these extremely rare scenarios of true, egregious abandonment, then it should not be beyond the capabilities of government to track and account for how the CS is spent -- just like they do with welfare payments. It is this last scenario -- egregious abandonment or a finding of unfitness for one parent -- that child support policy was originally intended to address, but it has spun out of control and is now a bureaucratic web that entraps just about every family that separates/ divorces and drives fathers out of their children's lives. I doubt the OP was fully aware of this. To the OP's credit -- we don't know whether or not his friend's case falls into this last scenario or not. Other's have pointed out -- we don't know the father's side of the story. Maybe he really did abandon the family. But probably, he did not. Most of the people who regularly read this group know that it is statistically very unlikely that he did, and therefore he's attacked with skepticism.
From: Bob W on 10 Sep 2008 17:08 <auto467016(a)hushmail.com> wrote in message news:0cc1bc0f-13ef-47dc-a885-d264bd767356(a)k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com... In the remaining cases, where one parent is clearly unfit, or simply abandons the family without cause -- child support may be appropriate. But it needs to be limited to the actual costs of raising the child, and it needs to be accounted for. When the number of CS cases are limited in number to these extremely rare scenarios of true, egregious abandonment, then it should not be beyond the capabilities of government to track and account for how the CS is spent -- just like they do with welfare payments. That is correct. State governments currently run welfare fraud investigation and welfare recovery units. They claim they protect the public interest when it is public money. Why not do the same when the government is collecting and disbursing private money? With modern technology tracking CS spending would be simplified dramatically. In my state some CP's fought to prevent stored value debit cards for CS in lieu of checks because their spending patterns could be tracked electronically. Now we have those debit cards and use of CS funds can be easily subpoenaed from the banks providing the service. The next question is whether the courts will allow the evidence and act when CS abuse is uncovered. It doesn't take a large bureaucracy to administer some CS spending oversight. The banks provide the record keeping. When NCP's have suspicions about CS spending abuses they should have access to the appropriate bank records and be able to bring their concerns before a judge.
From: Tomcat on 10 Sep 2008 17:59 On Sep 10, 4:08 pm, "Bob W" <robe...(a)teleport.com> wrote: > In the remaining cases, where one parent is clearly unfit, or simply > abandons the family without cause -- child support may be > appropriate. But it needs to be limited to the actual costs of > raising the child, and it needs to be accounted for. When the number > of CS cases are limited in number to these extremely rare scenarios of > true, egregious abandonment, then it should not be beyond the > capabilities of government to track and account for how the CS is > spent -- just like they do with welfare payments. But how do you define true, egregious abandonment? What's the difference between dumping the family and doing a disappearing act, compared to still being in the children's lives off and on, showing up for some soccer games, but still not contributing one cent to their financial wellbeing? Believe me there are many "in and out" dads out there. And then if it's up to the court to determine if CS is appopriate they will get in the middle of a big "no, I didn't abandon the family she kicked me out" kind of ordeal. The system would probably still end up favoring the mother and requiring CS since almost every scenario would be defined as "abandonment". > With modern technology tracking CS spending would be simplified > dramatically. In my state some CP's fought to prevent stored value debit > cards for CS in lieu of checks because their spending patterns could be > tracked electronically. Now we have those debit cards and use of CS funds > can be easily subpoenaed from the banks providing the service. The next > question is whether the courts will allow the evidence and act when CS abuse > is uncovered. > > It doesn't take a large bureaucracy to administer some CS spending > oversight. The banks provide the record keeping. When NCP's have > suspicions about CS spending abuses they should have access to the > appropriate bank records and be able to bring their concerns before a judge. I agree there should be some method to account for CS spending when it's suspected the CP is abusing the money. Debit cards or vouchers of some sort. I'm surprised this isn't already being done in some states?
From: Tomcat on 11 Sep 2008 00:39
On Sep 10, 2:57 pm, auto467...(a)hushmail.com wrote: > > Agreed -- though even if this policy became reality, there would still > be *some* divorce. In these remaining cases, some will be involve two > fit, willing parents. In those cases, shared parenting, with no > exchange of wealth, is the solution. The kids get to benefit from > being raised with both parents, and neither parent has a financial > incentive (in the form of child "support") to maneuver or manipulate > for custody. If you take away the financial incentive of receiving child support from the mother, that might make her less likely to push for divorce but wouldn't that just shift the incentive to the father to push for a divorce, knowing it won't be as big of a financial hit on him than it otherwise would under the current system? And no, I don't think that our court system will be able to determine which fathers are justified in asking for a divorce and which ones are egregiously abandoning the family without just cause. Trying to have a system where some fathers are required to pay CS and others are not would be a nightmare. |