Ted
2009-07-15 01:29:57 UTC
Not sure if many have considered this in terms of other situations and the
law
Here is a comparision that is close, but not exactly the same thing.
Grandpa dies, leaves his grandchild a trust fund (with mom as executor) ,
this fund gives $1000 a month to the executor to distribute for the needs of
the child up until their eighteenth birthday. When this happens mom sets up
a bank account for the money to be automatically sent to. As the money
starts to build up, mom buys an expensive cottage which luckily costs $1000
per month and has the payments taken directly out of the bank account
indicated above. When the child turns 18 , the cottage is paid off. If the
child were to sue mom for the cottage , would they be entitled to it. The
legal answer is yes in a case I read about recently (can't find the link)
the theory being that this actual money was the childs.
Now consider this, change the above story from grandpa dying to Dad giving
that money in terms of CS and keep everything else the same, could the child
sue mom for the cottage, the legal answer is NO as was decided a couple of
years ago in a couple of cases (the theory being that mom used her other
money to pay for things for the child and this money then belongs to her.
If you combine the second story with the fact that California recently
started a move to allow the ending of CS to be a substantial change in
circumstances in order to raise spousal support, I believe any reasonable
person can see the CS is merely hidden alimony and that the money does not
belong to the child.
Consider another question: Dad skips out on CS for 15 years, the child is
now 20 when Dad is found, he is assessed $100,000 in back CS, WHO gets the
money, the child or mom.
If mom gets it , this means that the $100,000 has been of 0 benefit to the
child and all that happened was that mom was paid by dad to raise her own
child.
law
Here is a comparision that is close, but not exactly the same thing.
Grandpa dies, leaves his grandchild a trust fund (with mom as executor) ,
this fund gives $1000 a month to the executor to distribute for the needs of
the child up until their eighteenth birthday. When this happens mom sets up
a bank account for the money to be automatically sent to. As the money
starts to build up, mom buys an expensive cottage which luckily costs $1000
per month and has the payments taken directly out of the bank account
indicated above. When the child turns 18 , the cottage is paid off. If the
child were to sue mom for the cottage , would they be entitled to it. The
legal answer is yes in a case I read about recently (can't find the link)
the theory being that this actual money was the childs.
Now consider this, change the above story from grandpa dying to Dad giving
that money in terms of CS and keep everything else the same, could the child
sue mom for the cottage, the legal answer is NO as was decided a couple of
years ago in a couple of cases (the theory being that mom used her other
money to pay for things for the child and this money then belongs to her.
If you combine the second story with the fact that California recently
started a move to allow the ending of CS to be a substantial change in
circumstances in order to raise spousal support, I believe any reasonable
person can see the CS is merely hidden alimony and that the money does not
belong to the child.
Consider another question: Dad skips out on CS for 15 years, the child is
now 20 when Dad is found, he is assessed $100,000 in back CS, WHO gets the
money, the child or mom.
If mom gets it , this means that the $100,000 has been of 0 benefit to the
child and all that happened was that mom was paid by dad to raise her own
child.