DivorceNet®

"As far as the rest goes, I suspect Dvd likes to be a devil's advocate in some arguements."

Let me make it clear that I don't like to be anything here nor playing devil's advocate. I'm just a normal parent who can have an ABILITY to see both sides of the coin. It's plainly my opinions and my understanding of the rational behind the family laws on how it is the way it is. Some people may disagree or do not like it simply because of their position and situation, not because their points were correct. Some only see on the surface of the issue such as: Why must I (NCP) have to send MY MONEY (CS) to the other parent so that he/she can enjoy it?
They just simply think only about "my money" and that caused them to infuriate at the system or their ex. Of course, there are certain minority CPs who profited from CS if the amount is significant enough to enjoy. But the majority do not. The reality is there is a divorce and things must be devided and the child's rights must be protected. Therefore, parents, NCP or CP, can't expect things to be as in an intact family, and either is forced to comply certain things each doesn't like to do due to the divorce.
In addition, those who complained about "sending CS" WITHOUT LIGITIMATE reasons must learn to think deeper than just CS. It would take much much more to take care of a child than in term of money (or not any amount of money can buy it), and only those who went through knew what I'm talking about and I don't want to list it here. If they think a little further, in case they only concern about the money doesn't go to child, if any left over from CS after expenses, it will be in the CP's estate and to be inherited by the child anyway.

Of course, I'm not speaking for those who got biased by a particular judge, and they have every right to complain. However, to use such general argument as "transfer wealth from NCP to CP" is flausible.

"I'm just a normal parent who can have an ABILITY to see both sides of the coin. "

You may see both sides, by typically, you don't relay anything but the side of the CP parent that doesn't abuse the CS system, and takes care of their children. Which is understandable, that's who you are.

I think DVD's opinion does not fit Tali's state (CA), as their statutes specifically state that CS is for equalizing the incomes in the 2 non-intact households. I've also found DVD's posts to be very slanted towards the CP.

"you don't relay anything but the side of the CP parent that doesn't abuse the CS system"

Not neccessarily. Just because one is a CP or a NCP doesn't mean he/she can't relay or see the other side's point of view. Some do, some don't. I'm just not one of those who blindly defend own position at all costs. Sometimes, I defended a helpless NCP, other times, I defended a CP's point of view. To put it simply, I defend whatever I think is right regardless. Of course, we are human and I can't say that I'm not without infuence of own position. The important point is when I addressed a particular issue, I TRIED hard not to be influenced by it.

My point DVD isn't that you haven't EVER stuck up for a NCP, my point was that from what I've read of your posts/responses, you typically side with the CP, you typically have the opinion that is in line with the typical CP. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, I even called you a good father. My point was that you typically take the side of the Custodial Parent IMO.

When you say "take side" in general, it implies "blindedly" taking side which I'm not (you can believe so if you like). If what you called "taking side" were for the right reason, then so be it regardless of how often. Of course, one will always pay more attentions close to home and heart, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as being fair and subjective.

You win. I give up.

I've always thought of DVD's way of thinking to be like my ex....who said to me during the divorce, even though I had been the primary parent while married: "Why do you want shared custody. Don't you get it? Moms get custody and Dads pay."

Fortunately, DVD has me on ignore, so he/she doesn't read any of my posts, which is a good thing. Clearly, we have opposite opinions when it comes to most family law issues.

That's ok, I have him/her on ignore - because even as a CP - i quite often disagree with him.

And just for the record - I follow with EngineerDon on this one. I am not comfortable with my state's "Equalize the Household's Incomes" theory either. While I do support some of its elements - such as influencing the amount of child support based on the amount of time with the child, and allowing for shared costs of medical expenses; I think that it is very difficult to use a "one size fits all" glove approach to setting amounts.

The only problem is - I'm still waiting to see a plan that is better. I'm not sure we should sit around waiting for state legislators to come up with a solution. If someone were to find a better option, it could be tested through marriage settlement agreements to see if it works better. I wonder what might be the next evolution for child support plans?