One more thing...try to think of it in regard to an intact family.

A family has 2 children and they are spoiled. Used to getting about everything they want and doing what they want. Then the couple has another child. This child has a severe disability. Because of this the mother has to stop working (she is the main breadwinner), therefore all the children "get" less. They have to adapt their lives in order to cover the expenses and special circumstances of the 3rd child. Fair? Not really, but there is no alternative. Families do it everyday.

Yes, from the first child's cs, unless of course one of the adults manages to make more money.

So, why did you say then that I didn't understand you ansd your concept??

(]



And I understood you from your first post on here. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

What are you talking about??? It isn't possible to lower cs just because a group wants anything. It IS possible to lower cs when there are ill children and a child that has special needs. If you don't think that that is fair...you aren't considering ALL THE CHILDREN's needs. Please tell me you at least understand the concepts I've explained...

You are just playing dumb right??

and

Again, you said also: “The cause was NOT to lower cs, but to make EVERY PARENT responsible for EVERY CHILD.”

And this is not contradictory to yoo??
Me playing dumb???
If these two/three statements have the same MEANING (re: to reduce cs or not) - ok, I'm dumb. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


This is different issue for me!
I do think that all children should be treated equally, (but not to benefit the one at the other one's expense!)


Yes, I did.
The difference is that I call spade a spade - it IS taking money from one to give to the other child.
MAYBE your movement doesn't WANT to take money from the 1st child, but not offering other solutions - it DOES.

PS: Anyone else "dumb" too (re: this concept) out there, to make me company? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Regarding College/University…
My parents had been paying everything before I got my first job.
I had to study in a different city; they paid the apartment, exams, food, clothing, vacations…
I earned my first penny after I finished University and got my 1st job (I was 24).
They paid my post-diploma study, although I worked at that time (most of my money were going on traveling I loved a lot.)
(Yes, I am not illiterate; it’s just that English is my second(third) language. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />, since 1997.)
They were not rich people, not at all, solid middle class. It was just their priority to make my life as easy as possible… Many times they made sacrifices and gave up things they wanted to afford many things for me…

So, I am going to be the same for my son.

My X will be paying CS till our son is 18 (all things being the same), not longer. After that it’s up to him if he’d give something or not.
I don’t rely even on his CS, mush less on him paying a part of our son’s studying.

When my son was 2 (2 years ago), I opened an educational funds account, and am paying (authorized payments) every month, increasing the amount every year according my salary increase.
When he’s 18, he’ll have 2/3 of the amount needed for post-secondary education that they forecast to be at that time.
And that’s all. The rest, I want him to earn himself (at that moment I differ from my parents… I think it is very useful that someone earns at least a bit for their education…)
He can have one floor of our home just for himself, free, if he wants to live with me, as long as he wants, and that can save him some money. Free food too.
If I stay alive and healthy as now, to be able to work at that time, of course.

My link gave a lot of detail, tuition, fees and housing as well as the avg financial aid award.

No references to what happens to the Financial Aid when a parent who is capable of paying refuses to contribute anything at all - as you've said is your stance.
The schools don't care that you won't pay, they just count that you are capable of paying.
I just watched a friend go through this with an absentee X who provides no support - and yet the forms want to count his income.
Yes, the costs are high, far higher now than when you went to school.

LF said,


I most certainly DID have the resources to provide for six children had my H died. You have no basis for this statement, since you do not know what my salary was nor how much life insurance my H and I each carried. And you have no information about my "abilities." I had a very secure job paying the equivalent of about 70K in today's wages, a masters degree, a bachelors degree (summa cum laude) from a prestigious university, and I could have paid off the mortgage with the life insurance. If one of us had died, supporting the kids would not have been a problem. The only thing I didn't think to plan for was my H leaving us for the female equivalent of a sugar daddy.

Please show me where I said I wouldn't pay.

I think I said I would give my kid carte blanche. I didn't say I wouldn't contribute.

However, I want to make that decision with my daughter, and not have the state tell me HOW MUCH I'm supposed to pay.

I personally have a really hard time with the state telling me how much time I'm supposed to spend with my daughter, how much money I'm supposed to give, etc.

If I demonstrate that I'm not a father who will support his child, then let the state step in to assist a MINOR child.

I want to be able to make my decision based on many criteria, not just what my income is. What if my child is a screwball and needs to learn discipline? If the state mandates how much I have to pay, just because I'm divorce (against my will, BTW) they are limiting a tool I have as a parent.

The only one who has said I wouldn't pay anything is you, another one of your DJ's.

I hope this is more clear.

T

You wrote "For the court to order me to pay for school for my daughter would be to deprive me of a learning tool for my daughter.

I personally think the courts should stay out of the collage funding issue."

An interesting take in that if college costs are included in the divorce decree, the courts aren't deciding, the parents together have decided college is a priority for the kids.

EE, I believe you like to argue for the point of arguing. The states aren't telling you how much time you should spend with your children - unless you are fightign for it. The courts don't want to decide any of this. They want the parties to work together in the best interests of the children. Courts were not intended to mandate this stuff, only they have been put in these roles by parties who use children as pawns. so if you object, then do all you can to support your children, and don't begrudge the X on how they spend the money. You have no idea how much (or how little) is actually benefitting your child.

Newly,

As long as you continue to exercise the DJ and to put words into my mouth, I will not have a conversation with you.


You don't know what I know and don't know, so how can you make such a judgment?

Do you know my state of residence? How do you know if the state/courts are deciding if NCP should pay and how much?

You have chosen to reject my information about how the courts work in the county in which I live and you dodged the question about should I go with your advice (I think it was you) or the advice of a family of well respected lawyers with 5 generations of experience practicing law in my county of residence.

So I will not argue anymore, I've stated the facts as I know them and what I believe. You are free to believe me and offer me the opportunity to have a differing opinion from yours, or you can continue with the DJ's and baseless statements.

I am happy to discuss the issue if it is free of baseless judgments about me or my situation.

T

You can read about courts and legislatures mandating such payment for divorced parents, but not for still married parents in these locations:

http://www.finaid.org/questions/divorce.phtml

http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/support-guidelines/college-support.html

So please don't tell me that courts and legislatures are not imposing requirements on NCP's that they do not impose on a couple that does not divorce.

T

Belonging,
If you don't have the decency and morals to agree that all children deserve taken care of, then you're a sick one indeed!!! We've got nothing more to discuss. You'd let a child die so that a first child could continue to play ball or not give up some toys. You've got a problem. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Don't be surprised if your ex gets remarried and has another child. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

EE,
My exh, myself and my husband all put ourselves through college. No help from anyone. We all have advanced degrees and make 6 figures...my husband is actually closer to 7 figures. I've known so many kids through the times that flunked out because "mommy" had babied the living crap out of them and given them everything!

And yet you never learned to spell "prejudice."

Is that all you can pick at me for...because I made a typo?? I'm sure there are many others, as I don't proof these posts. Feel free to point them out if that makes you feel superior or something!! LOL <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Oh, my...
Sickness is to accuse me for something like this.
Totally perverting my words... oh my God...


oh my God...
I imagine which means you use in your real life...
What a pity you cannot delete my posts, so a reader couldn't read what I really wrote...


I guess this was supposed to hurt me, additionally.
No success, dear, sorry. My X has all rights, now as a free man, to remarry.
He won't have anymore children though, sorry again...

Any hurt from you cannot be bigger then my sorry for you is...
Something so bad must have happened in your life to make you so bitter, mean, jealous... rude belongs to '6 figures' I guess...

Once is a typo; nine times is not.

I don't need to point out your deficiencies in spelling in order to feel morally superior to someone who is working hard to undermine the financial security of families in which one spouse has decided that the grass is greener elsewhere.