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: SamIAm on 9 Sep 2008 16:54 whatamess wrote: > On Sep 9, 2:55 pm, SamIAm <iam...(a)drseus.com> wrote: >> Tomcat wrote: >>> On Sep 9, 2:14 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> And by the way, I love how you began your post about >>>> "the child suffering financally"...yes, the typical woman thing >>>> to get everyone on her side...which as you got more ticked off >>>> you were able to tell the truth which is "he is NOT suffering >>>> financially"...it's just your girlfriend thinks more of money >>>> than of anything else >>> Okay "suffering financially" was an exaggeration on my part, I'll give >>> you that much. But different people have different views of what >>> financial success is. In my circle we are pushing our kids to work >>> towards getting into one of the top colleges and performing to their >>> full potential in an educational environment that fosters that. >>> Sometimes this takes money. Living in a good part of the city in a >>> good school district takes money. Weekend professional coaching to >>> help prepare our children for the SAT exam takes money. Sure, these >>> are luxuries but they are in the interest of the child not the >>> parent. If more Americans focused on the academic needs and >>> opportunities of their kids instead of sports and recreation and video >>> games we would be more competitive with the rest of the world. >>> But again, this post was NOT about my girlfriend whining about not >>> living the good life. This was not about my girlfriend wanting money >>> for the spa and new shoes. This was simply a post about a father who >>> has a LEGAL obligation that he is not fulfilling. Failing to fulfill >>> that LEGAL obligation impacts the environment and opportunities his >>> son has. Period. What is so controversial or wrong with asking a >>> question about that? >> I think their opinion is that the father has no obligation to provide >> for his kids if someone else is providing for them. That if the child >> has more than enough of whatever (such as your case), then the mother is >> wrong to ask the father to pay. >> >> I disagree with them.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > There are THOUSANDS of women who do not work for a living, > who are stay at home moms...I don't see you or anyone else in > our country screaming saying that the mothers have a DUTY to > contribute to the financial security of their children. If you so > believe that every parent must provide more than the basics > for each child and that even if the basics are already covered > by one spouse, that extra money is the RIGHT of the child > because all children should be financially supported by > both parents, then I suggest you go out and yell and scream > and speak up for the thousands of kids who's mom stays > at home and does not contribute to their financial well-being. > > The more you speak the more I realize what is so wrong > with this country...Your purpose in life is to provide "financially" > for children...it is obviously your belief, as well as your > girlfriend's > that money is more important than anything else in life. > Maybe the reason the guy took off was because your girlfriend > had already tried to squeeze every penny out of him and he > could no longer handle it...Ah, yes, you will say too bad...but > your girlfriend should be more concerned about her child having > a good relationship with his dad, than she should be about > the money he can give her so that she can manage how "she" > sees fit... > > It's a sad day in this country when so many people are so concerned > with money, and much less concerned with the mental well-being > of it's society... > > Nobody has said anything about not being concerned about the mental well-being of anyone. Just because I believe both parents should provide financially for their children doesn't mean I don't believe they should both provide emotionally as well.
From: Bob W on 9 Sep 2008 16:56 "SamIAm" <iamsam(a)drseus.com> wrote in message news:5cAxk.264135$gc5.261747(a)pd7urf2no... > Bob W wrote: >> >> "SamIAm" <iamsam(a)drseus.com> wrote in message >> news:0Syxk.82283$hx.65767(a)pd7urf3no... >>> Bob W wrote: >>>> >>>> "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:475382a6-e10e-4d56-9ec2-75c0b87a8695(a)m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... >>>> On Sep 9, 10:50 am, "DB" <Dee...(a)netscape.net> wrote: >>>>> "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >>>>> >>>>> > My girlfriend has raised her son for 11 years on her own, and is >>>>> >>>>> diligintly saving so she can send him to M.I.T. She is paying for him >>>>> to go to private classes on weekends to further his education and >>>>> prepare him for college entrance exams. Do you think this is easy on >>>>> one income with no help from the father? >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you help her out financially if you are so concerned for >>>>> her? >>>> >>>> I do help her some (remember we aren't even married yet and have been >>>> dating less than a year) but I don't help her to the degree her son's >>>> own father should help and is legally obligated to. I also have a >>>> daughter of my own I'm supporting. I should point out, it's not like >>>> she and her son are starving or anything. But without the father's >>>> child support money they haven't been able to have have the kind of >>>> life they could have had all these years. >>>> >>>> ======= >>>> Have you considered not being married to the boy's father is a >>>> significant cause for a reduced lifestyle? And more importantly, CS is >>>> for the children, not money to improve a mother's lifestyle. >>> >>> >>> The way it works is: >>> >>> Father doesn't pay child support >>> Mother has to pay for all child care expenses >>> Mother then has less money for other things. >>> >>> Mother's lifestyle is affected when father doesn't pay child support. >> >> Does it work that way when the mother is on public assistance and is >> assumed to not be able to support her children? >> > > Yes I say the answer is "No" because a mother on public assistance does not have the resources to pay for her share of child care expenses, she actually has more money because she gets more public money benefits than the value of CS, and she doesn't make up the difference if the fathe doesn't pay. > >> Does it work that way when the mother is ordered to pay CS to the father? > > Yes, only in reverse I say the answer is "No" the father has to pay for all child care expenses, the father has less money, and the NCP mother has more money. > >> >> Does it work that way when CS from the father is used exclusively so the >> mother can cut back on her pro-rata share of the CS order? > > Huh! CS orders cover both parent's pro-rata share of the total CS obligation. If a CP mother only relies on the father's share to support her child, and does not copntribute her pro-rata share the mother has more money for her own lifestyle and the child suffers finacially. > >> >> Does it work that way when the mother has a live-in boyfriend who >> consumes part of the household resources? > > Yes I say the answer is "No" because a live-in boyfriend consumes household resources which take money away from the child and the mother's share of CS goes toward supporting the boyfriend rather than her own child.
From: Tomcat on 9 Sep 2008 17:42 On Sep 9, 3:46 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Just because a court mandates something does not make it > ethical or correct. All that means is that someone has convinced > the courts to do X, Y or Z...which many states/politicians do > only to get elected. > > So since you believe that both children should be financially > supported by children, do you believe that stay at home moms > should go to jail or be looked at as being deadbeats because > they don't financially support their children? How exactly > is it that you can justify what the courts do "because it's a court" > and not apply that same injustice to stay at home moms? > > A perfect example...legally, people must pay their credit > card debt even though a credit card company has the right > to raise that interest rate to 30%...does that make the > 30% interest rate "ethical" or "fair?" No, it does not. > It makes it legal to collect, but not ethical or fair. > Child support is the same way. > > The decision to divorce was made by the parents. > It is legal to get divorced, but illegal to not pay what > the courts say. It is legal to mess up a child mentally, > but not legal to not give them the money that someone > else claims the child is entitled to, although most of > child support is NOT used for the basic needs of a child. > Basic needs are food, clothing, shelter...AND peace > or mental stability...It's funny how a parent who destroys > the mental stability of the child, just because the courts > allow it, can then scream about the financial "stability" > of the child, although that stability is not at all related > to the "basic rights of a child"...and actually, of every > citizen of this country. > > Since you believe so much in what the courts say > is "right", I pray for the day that the courts will tell > parents of intact families that the MUST pay for college > for their kids, that they MUST spend X amount of money > on them or they'll be called deadbeats... > > And about the BS of deadbeat parents on the news, > the reason the states do this is because they make > so much money from the government by making > "deadbeats" pay up...They wouldn't dare say > in the same story, "oh by the way, for every 1USD we > collect from this idiot, YOUR tax dollars are paying > US..." > > Any mother out there without a job is NOT called > a deadbeat by society...they are helped and given > all kinds of money from the government...however, > as soon as a father is faced with the same circumstances, > he is called a deadbeat... > > It's actually a sad day when men buy into the bs that > so many woman have created...the reason there is > so much divorce in this country is not because most > men are abusive, but because most women have figured > out they can make so much money from their ex's... > The reason there is so much divorce is because women > put "THEIR" mental well being, you know the BS of... > "we just drifted apart...I just wasn't in love anymore" > or "the sex was no good"...ABOVE the mental > well-being of their children...and those same women > later use their children to play the victim once again. > > Real men stand up and think on their own, they don't > allow the media or the courts to dictate what is correct > or ehtical...obviously, you're more concerned with what > the courts say you should do, than with finding out > the reality of the child support system and how it is > WOMEN who have created this nightmare... Women abusing the court system, being deadbeat and lazy, and milking men for money is indeed a problem and I'm glad you pointed it out, but those problems should be dealt with on a case by case basis and not solved with a blanket argument that child support is inherently wrong and should be abandoned. Just because some people get screwed by excessive credit card interest rates doesn't mean credit card fees in general should be outlawed. In that case credit card companies would go out of business and everybody would lose. If child support was taken away like that more children would lose than gain. You keep pointing out the mental vs monetary needs of children. I don't believe divorce hurts kids. I think BAD MARRIAGES hurt kids. There is a big difference. Most kids are already suffering from a bad marriage and divorce is just the end result of a bad marriage. The court allows divorce because, well, a government that forces two people to stay together is not a free country is it? I'm all for preaching that money can't buy happiness and that a child's mental needs are first and foremost but what does that have to do with collecting child support money from fathers so children can have better financial situations?
From: Robert A. Fink, M. D. on 9 Sep 2008 17:46 On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:05:13 -0700 (PDT), whatamess <mudanzapr(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Sep 9, 2:55�pm, SamIAm <iam...(a)drseus.com> wrote: >> Tomcat wrote: >> > On Sep 9, 2:14 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> And by the way, I love how you began your post about >> >> "the child suffering financally"...yes, the typical woman thing >> >> to get everyone on her side...which as you got more ticked off >> >> you were able to tell the truth which is "he is NOT suffering >> >> financially"...it's just your girlfriend thinks more of money >> >> than of anything else >> >> > Okay "suffering financially" was an exaggeration on my part, I'll give >> > you that much. �But different people have different views of what >> > financial success is. �In my circle we are pushing our kids to work >> > towards getting into one of the top colleges and performing to their >> > full potential in an educational environment that fosters that. >> > Sometimes this takes money. �Living in a good part of the city in a >> > good school district takes money. �Weekend professional coaching to >> > help prepare our children for the SAT exam takes money. �Sure, these >> > are luxuries but they are in the interest of the child not the >> > parent. �If more Americans focused on the academic needs and >> > opportunities of their kids instead of sports and recreation and video >> > games we would be more competitive with the rest of the world. >> >> > But again, this post was NOT about my girlfriend whining about not >> > living the good life. �This was not about my girlfriend wanting money >> > for the spa and new shoes. �This was simply a post about a father who >> > has a LEGAL obligation that he is not fulfilling. �Failing to fulfill >> > that LEGAL obligation impacts the environment and opportunities his >> > son has. �Period. �What is so controversial or wrong with asking a >> > question about that? >> >> I think their opinion is that the father has no obligation to provide >> for his kids if someone else is providing for them. �That if the child >> has more than enough of whatever (such as your case), then the mother is >> wrong to ask the father to pay. >> >> I disagree with them.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >There are THOUSANDS of women who do not work for a living, >who are stay at home moms...I don't see you or anyone else in >our country screaming saying that the mothers have a DUTY to >contribute to the financial security of their children. If you so >believe that every parent must provide more than the basics >for each child and that even if the basics are already covered >by one spouse, that extra money is the RIGHT of the child >because all children should be financially supported by >both parents, then I suggest you go out and yell and scream >and speak up for the thousands of kids who's mom stays >at home and does not contribute to their financial well-being. > >The more you speak the more I realize what is so wrong >with this country...Your purpose in life is to provide "financially" >for children...it is obviously your belief, as well as your >girlfriend's >that money is more important than anything else in life. >Maybe the reason the guy took off was because your girlfriend >had already tried to squeeze every penny out of him and he >could no longer handle it...Ah, yes, you will say too bad...but >your girlfriend should be more concerned about her child having >a good relationship with his dad, than she should be about >the money he can give her so that she can manage how "she" >sees fit... > >It's a sad day in this country when so many people are so concerned >with money, and much less concerned with the mental well-being >of it's society... > When parents produce a child, each parent has equal responsibility in the rearing of that child. Childrearing may be financial and it may be "service" related. A stay-at-home Mom supplies a large amount of "service" in childrearing, and, in an intact family, such is at least as valuable as a financial contribution. When parents split up, the 50-50 division of responsibility should remain. If one parent is the "custodial parent" (and is responsible for living with the child), they have to be both the "stay-at-home" parent AND contribute financially. The "noncustodial parent" has to supplement in the only way that he/she can, e.g. financially. If the noncustodial parent refuses to do this, then the custodial parent has to do "double duty". The "ideal" solution (aside from not splitting up in the first place) is that the parents share 50-50 in both living with the child and the financial support. If this is not possible, then one parent may have to do more of the "stay-at-home" services, and the other parent will have to contribute more money. We do not know the circumstances of the departure of the father in this case (to China). He is, however, 50% responsible for the care and rearing of his child. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M. D., President California Parents United, Inc. "The best parent is both parents...."
From: Bob W on 9 Sep 2008 18:05
"Tomcat" <tom_overton_1968(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:7876c2d7-9bd4-484a-af84-105f5942f8f5(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... On Sep 9, 3:46 pm, whatamess <mudanz...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Just because a court mandates something does not make it > ethical or correct. All that means is that someone has convinced > the courts to do X, Y or Z...which many states/politicians do > only to get elected. > > So since you believe that both children should be financially > supported by children, do you believe that stay at home moms > should go to jail or be looked at as being deadbeats because > they don't financially support their children? How exactly > is it that you can justify what the courts do "because it's a court" > and not apply that same injustice to stay at home moms? > > A perfect example...legally, people must pay their credit > card debt even though a credit card company has the right > to raise that interest rate to 30%...does that make the > 30% interest rate "ethical" or "fair?" No, it does not. > It makes it legal to collect, but not ethical or fair. > Child support is the same way. > > The decision to divorce was made by the parents. > It is legal to get divorced, but illegal to not pay what > the courts say. It is legal to mess up a child mentally, > but not legal to not give them the money that someone > else claims the child is entitled to, although most of > child support is NOT used for the basic needs of a child. > Basic needs are food, clothing, shelter...AND peace > or mental stability...It's funny how a parent who destroys > the mental stability of the child, just because the courts > allow it, can then scream about the financial "stability" > of the child, although that stability is not at all related > to the "basic rights of a child"...and actually, of every > citizen of this country. > > Since you believe so much in what the courts say > is "right", I pray for the day that the courts will tell > parents of intact families that the MUST pay for college > for their kids, that they MUST spend X amount of money > on them or they'll be called deadbeats... > > And about the BS of deadbeat parents on the news, > the reason the states do this is because they make > so much money from the government by making > "deadbeats" pay up...They wouldn't dare say > in the same story, "oh by the way, for every 1USD we > collect from this idiot, YOUR tax dollars are paying > US..." > > Any mother out there without a job is NOT called > a deadbeat by society...they are helped and given > all kinds of money from the government...however, > as soon as a father is faced with the same circumstances, > he is called a deadbeat... > > It's actually a sad day when men buy into the bs that > so many woman have created...the reason there is > so much divorce in this country is not because most > men are abusive, but because most women have figured > out they can make so much money from their ex's... > The reason there is so much divorce is because women > put "THEIR" mental well being, you know the BS of... > "we just drifted apart...I just wasn't in love anymore" > or "the sex was no good"...ABOVE the mental > well-being of their children...and those same women > later use their children to play the victim once again. > > Real men stand up and think on their own, they don't > allow the media or the courts to dictate what is correct > or ehtical...obviously, you're more concerned with what > the courts say you should do, than with finding out > the reality of the child support system and how it is > WOMEN who have created this nightmare... Women abusing the court system, being deadbeat and lazy, and milking men for money is indeed a problem and I'm glad you pointed it out, but those problems should be dealt with on a case by case basis and not solved with a blanket argument that child support is inherently wrong and should be abandoned. Just because some people get screwed by excessive credit card interest rates doesn't mean credit card fees in general should be outlawed. In that case credit card companies would go out of business and everybody would lose. If child support was taken away like that more children would lose than gain. You keep pointing out the mental vs monetary needs of children. I don't believe divorce hurts kids. I think BAD MARRIAGES hurt kids. There is a big difference. Most kids are already suffering from a bad marriage and divorce is just the end result of a bad marriage. The court allows divorce because, well, a government that forces two people to stay together is not a free country is it? I'm all for preaching that money can't buy happiness and that a child's mental needs are first and foremost but what does that have to do with collecting child support money from fathers so children can have better financial situations? ======= Most of us believe there is nothing wrong with CS. The problems occur in the following areas: 1. Imputing incomes to set artifically high CS orders. 2. Establishing arrears retroactively. 3. Failing to have any accountability for how CS is spent. 4. Not recognizing any of the expenses an NCP incurs. 5. Ignoring that 27% of child rearing expenses travel with the children. 6. Not allowing any consideration for an NCP's visitation expenditures. 7. Making getting a CS reduction an almost impossible task. 8. Requiring fathers to work while allowing mothers to not work. 9. Monitoring NCP CS payments while ignoring CP obligations. 10. Providing CP's tax benefits and credits for spending tax-free CS income. 11. Not acknowledging real life changes fathers experience that reduce the ability to pay. 12. Forcing non-biological fathers to pay CS for children fathered by other men. |