View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:04 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Tayken Tayken is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,563
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
It's really impossible to make things fair or equal.
It isn't hard to make things fair. But, it is hard to make them fair and equal. You can get close but, family law is not about "perfection". It is about resolving matters for children ... Not parents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
No two parents are equal on any dimension and the idea that equalizing the financial aspect would be fair does not take into account that all other aspects can not be equalized.
That is why they use the offset method to calculate child support in shared residency matters when the access split is around the 60/40 mark.

"Parent A" income = 100,000
"Parent B" income = 35,000

1. Parent B majority access support from Parent A is: $880/month
2. Parent A majority access support from Parent B is: $303/month

Now, let's see how fair this is...

In 1. Parent A is paying 10.56% of income in CS. In 2. Parent B is paying 10.38%! Gasp the inequality!

Now, lets apply the offset to this where the parents share residency at minimum to a 60/40.

$880 - $303 = Parent A pays Parent B $577

((577*12)/100,000)*100 = 6.92% of 100,000

Feel free to make a spreadsheet and put incomes of all types and you will get an average that produces the same %s roughly. Well, for anything 149,000 or less. 150,000+ changes the rules and game.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
For example, lets say one parent has more income because they work more hours while the other parent spends more time playing with the kids and being the fun parent.
Then, the non-fun over working parent should work less and spend more quality time with the children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
The child may very well want to be with the fun parent who has time for them rather than the one who is working all the time.
Work less, spend more time with the children. Equality is not limited to income or time. Courts will often tell you that the QUALITY of time is more important than the AMOUNT of time. This is something you need to truly understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
Another example would be that one parent may be more strict than the other, and so the child wants to be with the more permissive parent.
Again, you will have to evaluate things accordingly and in your unique situation. Children can voice an opinion age 12-14... After 14 it is hard to force. It is just a reality you have to deal with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
Do we want equality of opportunity or equality of outcome?
Court doesn't care about either. They want what is best for the child in accordance with Rule 24 of the CLRA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
Government has a tough time running itself, now we are going to allow it into every family relationship and have it dictate what is fair and equal? Its going to micromanage the individual finances? What if one parent earns more because he/she insured more school debt in the process?
Government (legal system) doesn't want to do this either. They want parents to figure it out all by themselves. The only time they get involved is when someone involves them. Then the law applies. Parents can do whatever they want... The courts won't interfere unless asked to.

Settle your matter. But, to settle you and the other parent will need to make compromises to come to an agreement. If you cannot the court will order something in the absence of an agreement if asked...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
And how about the unintended consequences of this where maybe if we didnt have this intrusion then people would make the choice of more responsible partners to mate with?
Again, the court system hasn't intruded on you. An adult parent ASKED the court to become involved. You may not have been the person who asked the court for assistance because you can't resolve this matter privately and how 90% of people do...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
And what does this teach children? Im sorry little Johnny, you spent your free time delivering papers and making money but your brother Alan sat around playing video games and having fun so we decided to take half from Johnny's piggy bank and give it to Alan?
Huh? Really? Didn't you see how Trump Jr. got eaten alive with his stupid halloween candy stupidity. I won't unleash this on you... Go search for it and see the total silliness of your comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doctor Martins View Post
Because its unfair Johnny gets to buy more candy than Alan. We wanted to equalize it.
We live in a society where we take care of each other. We contribute to the greater good. If you don't want to contribute to the greater good of YOUR CHILD then, that will reflect very poorly on you in court and custody and access will be ordered accordingly.

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote