almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>You forget no one is contributing to their expenses for the roof over head, food, utilities when child is with them.
Or perhaps you forget that not all NCPs want or have their kids with them? Would be so much simpler if everyone fit a standard mold like that. But when they don't, we can't apply a standard mold to everyone. So maybe do it that way, for those that DO have their kids and DO provide them with the basics, but those who refuse to have them or who abused their kids and lost their rights to be near them, we just sock em with the highest CS we could muster and let em biotch and moan to their heart's content? I'm sure that won't go over well with someone. Though I personally can't figure out why it wouldn't. ;)
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
It is also the fact that when the marriage is in tact, money used to support the children also comes with an itangible positive feedback. If you purchase something, you are able to see teh fruits of the effort and how it benefits the child and even their joy for some items. When childd support is paid, that positive feedback is stripped away to a significant extent. It seems to go into a black hole for the payer. That often causes resentment.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
>>>>>you guys didnt even know I was gone
I haven't been here since Tuesday, but I could've sworn I responded to some of your posts. Course, those may have been from the previous week since I only get here Friday to Tuesday when I can. So...did ya miss me?
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
My ex made more than I did. Heck, I was on welfare at the time the divorce was made final. And yet, he was only ordered to pay $100/mo. The daycare alone was twice that. And even once I managed to get back to work, I still made less than he did. And yet both our "shares" didn't cover the basic costs of raising a child.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
I'd say that falls under b). They resent the CS. The resentment may or may not be valid. But they'll avoid paying extra because of this resentment.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
That is also an issue I have no idea how to reconcile. It is certainly a difficult one.
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
ALSO in an intact family, a new child only increases the costs proportionately in many areas like utilities, housing, food, etc.. Now we're dealing with 2 non-intact families. You have increased costs in both homes. So splitting it 50/50 may mean that neither get what they truly need. At some point, parents have to learn to stop having more kids in out of wedlock or bad marriage situations. Occasionally, but I think its VERY occasionally, they just have a run of bad luck twice. Generally though, they run into a new marriage and have another kid right away and then that marriage goes sour, or was going sour when the pregnancy occurred even. Just poor planning on the part of the parents.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
almostheaven
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 07/13/04
Posts: 10468
Loc: West Virginia
|
|
Do you mean to just resolve the issue of the NCP who resents paying the CS because they don't see where its going? That could be remedied by allowing periodic reviews, by an independent party, of the expenditures to be given ONLY to those NCPs who keep current on their CS.
--------------------
Char Fox
|
Maury
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 8148
Loc: This Asylum --->
|
|
In Wisconsin, there is a presumption under the statutes to maximize time with each parent that is generally viewed as a presumption for joint physical custody.If the parties live with in the same geographic area, that is usually the outcome. the children's expesnses are then divided equally which seems to solve many problems.
|
Relayer
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 03/13/07
Posts: 9506
Loc: Moorglade Mover
|
|
[quote]It is also the fact that when the marriage is in tact, money used to support the children also comes with an itangible positive feedback. If you purchase something, you are able to see teh fruits of the effort and how it benefits the child and even their joy for some items. When childd support is paid, that positive feedback is stripped away to a significant extent. It seems to go into a black hole for the payer. That often causes resentment. [/quote]
This is a main cause for the resentment I would say, combined with the fact that there is no accounting how the money is spent by the CP and used to enhace the CP's lifestyle. Thats it in my case anyway. Aslo, the mother had no legal responsibility to provide any kind of support herself. None.
--------------------
GO CUBBIES!!!!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
