I've read some of your posts and replies, let me say first that you're always welcome here as many have told you. I am no authority of course but on this I believe all agree.<P>I'm writing actually in concern for you. In reading your posts and replies you come across to me as a prime canidate for depression. You blame almost everything on yourself. This is not fair or healthy. Take responsibilty for your actions but not for others. Yes you must live with what has happened, but that doesn't mean beat yourself up constantly. I would hate to see children suffer do to a parent's inability to care for them because they are depressed. You may say not me, but you would be surprised what depression will do to you. And yes I realize that you know what depression, who wouldn't that's been through what you have.<P>I would also like to offer an opinion to you as far as CS goes. Most that post here are W of men that have OC and are angry that they must pay CS. ( alot of acronyms ) But honestly if the system wasn't so corrupt then they, me included, should pay support. I pay support and the only part I begrudge about it is that it does not go to support my daughter. It goes to support her mother's party lifestyle.<P>You should receive CS from the father. Especially if he chooses to be a father. You can even have it done as to where it is an amount agreed upon between the two of you and not decided by courts. (unless public assistance is involved) While many of the women here may not like it (sorry), fathers should pay CS. As I said earlier, if the system wasn't so messed up this process would not be so painful.<P>Oh well, I've taken enough time and space Main concern: watch the depression, no matter what the the past, you are what you make yourself to be.<P>Good Luck and God Bless<P><P>------------------<BR>1Co:2:4: And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:<BR>1Co:2:5: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

<BR>Paul,<P>Believe it or not, I actually agree that there is a moral obligation for both parents to support a child, at least if both parents are active in the child's life. OTOH, I think the single most effective means of dealing with a CP who is extralegally denying visitation would be to cut CS payments entirely until the CP has a change of heart - ah, but I digress.<P>My take on the CS issue is that most people feel a moral obligation to pay for a child. The problems are twofold: (a) what is a proper amount for CS, and (b) how can we assure that the amount paid by an NCP actually reaches the child, and isn't appropriated by the CP for personal consumption?<P>The former of these is addressed by reviewing and correcting CS guidelines. IMO, the CS guidelines are too low for low-income families, OK in middle-income families, and far too generous in higher-income families. The errors in the forumlae used to calculate CS should be corrected, but don't hold your breath on that actually happening.<P>The latter of these, the CS appropriation problem, could be addressed by disaggregating CS into two components, the (share of the) out of pocket actual expense portion and the (share of the) standard of living portion. The out of pocket expenses could be paid directly by the NCP to the CP. The standard of living portion could be placed in a restricted trust account with the NCP named as sole trustee. In this case, only the NCP can access those assets to purchase goods/services for the children. This structure would prevent the CP from using the standard of living component on themself, and would guarantee that the NCP's standard of living portion of CS would reach the children. Is such a system elegant? Not at all, but its creep CPs who spend the money on themself that cause such structures to eventually become mandatory. *sigh*<P>Bystander

Hi Paul:<P>Even though I am the betrayed spouse, I believe my husband should pay CS. <BR>The law in the state where the OC resides mandates 17% of my husband's gross salary. If that is the mandated percentage that everyone had to adhere to, there would be no argument from me. However, the Judge has decreed a whopping 60% of my husband's salary to be extorted from us. In addition to this outrageous amount, the Judge has refused my husband visitation due to his alcoholism/bipolar illness, which has been under control for the past few weeks.<P>I doubt that many of the women here would be so outraged about the money if the laws were fair and just and the spouse, marriage and children of origin were considered in the overall equation.<P>Bystander, as always, says it best; the errors in the formula used to calculate CS should be corrected.<P>BTW, Bystander, when I broached this subject with the attorney and told him that they (the courts) were expecting us to provide shelter for the OW, he stated that we were expected to provide shelter for OC, and OW comes with the package.<P>catnip =^^=<BR> <p>[This message has been edited by catnip (edited August 21, 2000).]

Catnip writes:<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>BTW, Bystander, when I broached this subject with the attorney and told him that they (the courts) were expecting us to provide shelter for the OW, he stated that we were expected to provide shelter for OC, and OW comes with the package.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>That's an absurd position, because child support is only supposed to be used to fund the <B>marginal</B> increase in costs associated with rearing the child. For example, lets say an OW lives in an apartment complex where 1-bedroom apartments go for $400/mo and 2-bedroom apartments go for $600/mo. The appropriate child support cost for housing is NOT the proportionate part of $600 - its the proportionate expense of the marginal increase in cost (i.e., $600-$400=$200). If both the OW and the MM earned equal income, the amount in CS would be $100 for housing. The problem is that the current models don't cost it this way, and in effect subsidize the CPs.<P>Another problem is that the current formulae actually encourage OWs to have children by several different men. After all, your biggest CS "paydirt" is with the first child. So after having one illegimate child, OWs have incentive to have another illegimate child with a *different* MM. I wish I was joking about this, but I'm not! <P>Bystander<p>[This message has been edited by Bystander (edited August 21, 2000).]

Paul, catnip and bystander make very good points about the CS issue. Your child is entitled to it, and the father should pay it. The trust solution is a particularly useful tool; however, it isn't likely that the courts will employ them unless both parties agree. The CS "prize" goes to the CP for spending as they see fit, which may not be for the child's best interests. It amazes me that the CS "gods" do not see this conflict of interest (i.e., the CP using the child's money for whatever) and support the trust solution. <P>To avoid conflict, I would make the trustee a disinterested third party, possibly an attorney or other financial advisor, who would have an understanding of reasonable needs of the child and also the saavy to make the trust earn money at the same time. <P>As the CP, make the trust solution an offer to the father. What could be better for your child AND more palatable to the parent paying the CS? CPs who bristle at the thought of a trust arrangement really show how much they put their own interests ahead of their child's. I'm sure that you do have your child's best interests in mind, but many "greedy" CPs ruin the reputation of the responsible ones.<p>[This message has been edited by WJC (edited August 21, 2000).]

I also believe that my H should pay child support, should DNA prove OC to be his. I may not like it a lot, and it doesn't make things any easier on us when we have always lived paycheck to paycheck, but this child did not aske to be born. When it is, and when and if it is proven to be H's, we have no problem with CS. Our problem is how do we know that the child will be well cared for with the money, and that it is not blown on booze, drugs, etc for OW? I believe a father also stated this as a worry up above. We don't want to support OW's bad habits, we want the child to have food, clothes, all basic needs. But what we want will no doubt go by the wayside, since when the money lands in OW's hands the last thing she will be thinking of is the baby. She has already shown that, and the baby isn't even born yet.