 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Parenting / Parenting / March 2007NO Parental responsibilty but must pay
How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and, refused the father Parental responsibility, demand that he has to pay the CSA? Surely, the message from the mother is "f.ck off, I dont want you to have anything to do with our baby." This being so, why does the law and media treat thousands of fathers like us as deadbeats etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable support that we can afford. > How can a mother, who will not include a father's name on their > child's birth certificate, who has refused the father any contact and, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > etc...when all we want is to see our children and pay a reasonable > support that we can afford. Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you have Is to pay... "Dusty Steenbock" <no@no.com> wrote in > Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you > have Is to pay... And pay what they say! Welcome to the suckers club of America! > "Dusty Steenbock" <no@no.com> wrote in > > > > Welcome to the wonderful world of child support. Where the only right you > > have Is to pay... > > And pay what they say! With NO guarantee that one thin dime is ever spent on the child. Last I checked, one gets something for their money. But when it comes to "child support", you get NOTHING for your money! Gee, what a deal. > Welcome to the suckers club of America! >> "Dusty Steenbock" <no@no.com> wrote in >> > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> Welcome to the suckers club of America! What would you say to a system in which both parents are required to pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could withdraw with appropriate receipts? I see something like this accomplishing a few things: A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute, B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually spent for the child, and C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive the reimbursement. D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child. What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course. If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be considered. Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are calculated. Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for their child. Beverly "Beverly" <beverly@hiwaay.net> wrote in > D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of > majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage > in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child. I would be in favor of such a system, but the notion of the parents paying a child is silly unless they give the money for college. My parents could not afford to send us to college, we had to fund that on our own, nothing wrong with that either. > >> "Dusty Steenbock" <no@no.com> wrote in > >> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > pay their portion of child support into a fund from which they could > withdraw with appropriate receipts? I would say it's just another unnecessary government control. But if any parent chooses to hire the government people to manage their private budget, more power to them. What would you say to a "system" where each parent is DIRECTLY responsible for the care of their children? > I see something like this > accomplishing a few things: > > A) It enforces the notion that EACH parent MUST contribute, > B) It provides a paper trail to ensure the money was actually > spent for the child, and Uhuh. The woman takes her boyfriend and three other friends out to dinner. She then claims it was her children that dined with her. So much for your paper trail. > C) It ensures that whomever SPENDS money on a child can receive > the reimbursement. As well as spending money on the boyfriend. (see above) > D) IF anything remains upon the child reaching the age of > majority, either the parents are refunded the money in the percentage > in which they contributed OR the money is released to the child. How about the parents keep the money in their OWN pockets and spend it if/when/how they deem fit? Or are the government people better managers of and more entitled to the parents' private budgets than are the parents? > What if the receipts total more than the contributions? Then both > reimbursements would be scaled down equally and reimbursed at the next > possible time in which contributions exceed expenses. There would > need to be guidelines as to what expenses are acceptable, of course. Yup. And should not such "guidelines" be determined by each parent? > If EITHER parent fails to contribute, receipts submitted shall not be > considered. Isn't that the default in most parental situations? Neither parent contributes to a government "child support" fund, and neither parent gets reimbursed for any receipts. Been working since the beginning of time; why change it now? > Furthermore, any excess would be set aside for the parent > who contributed and any deficiencies shall be paid to the contributing > parent BEFORE current receipts in a month where both contribute are > calculated. Why have a middleman? I would presume the service would not be free, thus LESS money "for the children". > Heck, in a double entry accounting system, reports could be generated > upon demand so either parent could ensure their money is caring for > their child. The ONLY way to ensure such is to provide yourself. Nevertheless, who pays for this service? > Beverly I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living increase!l > I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned > eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later > my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living > increase!l That's why I recommend you count your sperm each and every night. . . you never know when one will come back and bite you in the a.s. > I have two kids that I paid support for. When my daughter turned > eighteen my support went down seven dollars a week. Several months later > my support went UP seventeen dollars a week for the cost of living > increase!l Indeed! That's their game. Ever notice that the alloted amount for the first (oldest) child is significantly LESS than any subsequent children? Ya think that's by accident? I could never figure out why it costs less to "support" an older child. Would somebody explain this to me? Wouldn't the difference between how much you paid (per court order) and how much it gets reduced upon termination be an overpayment subject to reimbursement? After all, if you no longer have to pay "support" for a child, and the total payment gets reduced by seven bucks, it follows that seven bucks is all it cost to "support" that particular child. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.