Parenting Police.

[pixiegirl (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbell

I don't know what the court actually does, but IMO they should only make the non-custodial parent pay child support based upon the child attending public school. If the custodial parent wants to put the kids in private school anyway and the non-custodial parent is against that, then the custodial parent can go ahead and put them in private school, but have to foot the bill themselves, since they had public school available, but chose not to use it.

It depends on what type of school they attended while the parents were together. Or at least it should. If the children were already in private school than daddy needs to suck it up and continue to support that. If this is something new that the mother wants than she needs to realize that it's her want and suck it up and foot the bill.

[sanchezf (Premo)]

Originally Posted by pixiegirl

Were they in private school prior to the break-up?

First child wasn't old enough for school yet and second hadn't come along yet. The decision for private school was ok when first child was ready to go to school but when Oops number 2 came along, it just isn't affordable.

[pixiegirl (Premo)]

Originally Posted by sanchezf

First child wasn't old enough for school yet and second hadn't come along yet. The decision for private school was ok when first child was ready to go to school but when Oops number 2 came along, it just isn't affordable.

That's a tough one. I'd think that if the father agreed to send one to private school when the parents were still together that the court would continue that and also possibly agree to the second child as well for continuity. But.... That's just my best guess. I think it would come down to the judge/master hearing the case.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by pixiegirl

That's a tough one. I'd think that if the father agreed to send one to private school when the parents were still together that the court would continue that and also possibly agree to the second child as well for continuity. But.... That's just my best guess. I think it would come down to the judge/master hearing the case.

All this stuff about getting the Courts and the Judge to decide what school the kids will go to is exactly what "parenting police" and "big daddy gov" is talking about.

The choice of schools is a parenting decision and it is a wrong question for a Court of law. If one parent will not cooperate then that is normal life. It has to be worked out by the parents and giving the problem of which school over to the Courts is letting the big daddy gov do the deciding as the parenting police.

The entire concept of having the Courts to make parenting decisions is big time wrong and disfunctional.

Shall then we allow the Courts to decide if the children might watch violent progaming? or not? or have the Courts decide what shall be the children's bedtime?

We need to let the parents take care of their own parenting business and not the gov.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Why must the poor pay the rich ? when the rich do not need the money ? and the poor can not live without it ?

You stated in your first post that paying child support was punishing to the parent. Why do you feel that providing child support (any child support) is a punishment. Forget the <1% of people that fit into the 10 mil vs. 20 hours at min wage group, let's go with the 85% of people that make roughly equal amounts - or, at the very least do not have such a huge disparity in wages as 10 million dollars. So, the question is, why is it punishing for a parent to provide for their child?

[jetmonkey]

Originally Posted by Beelzebaby666

The hell it's not!!!

I'm pretty sure you just agreed with him.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

All this stuff about getting the Courts and the Judge to decide what school the kids will go to is exactly what "parenting police" and "big daddy gov" is talking about.

The choice of schools is a parenting decision and it is a wrong question for a Court of law. If one parent will not cooperate then that is normal life. It has to be worked out by the parents and giving the problem of which school over to the Courts is letting the big daddy gov do the deciding as the parenting police.

The entire concept of having the Courts to make parenting decisions is big time wrong and disfunctional.

Shall then we allow the Courts to decide if the children might watch violent progaming? or not? or have the Courts decide what shall be the children's bedtime?

We need to let the parents take care of their own parenting business and not the gov.

Still haven't passed that reading comprehension course, have you? No one is saying the courts will decide anything for the children's school. They're talking about dividing up the costs if the parents aren't already in agreement. Most of us don't think the custodial parent should just give up and leave it all up to the non-custodial to decide what should be provided, we use the millenium old court system to provide an objective "judge" (wonder where they got that word from) to decide that fair distribution of costs. Reader's Digest: Courts don't decide, parents do. Courts help when they can't decide together so a disloyal, dishonorable parent cannot saddle the other with all costs.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by Beelzebaby666

http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/

That link is not credible or realistic.

It is a toy for rich people.

It says under $38,000 like that means working poor families. Hog wash.

And it calculates the area that people live,

like the Hoyer greed growth in 5th District makes this a rich family area.

That link is pure trash.

[sanchezf (Premo)]

Originally Posted by pixiegirl

That's a tough one. I'd think that if the father agreed to send one to private school when the parents were still together that the court would continue that and also possibly agree to the second child as well for continuity. But.... That's just my best guess. I think it would come down to the judge/master hearing the case.

They were not togther when he agreed to the first one, they were seperated.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by sanchezf

They were not togther when he agreed to the first one, they were seperated.

I looked at the worksheet from the posts above and see no line for this type of a cost. Am I missing something?