PDA

View Full Version : Where the CS goes....


Test
July 17th 03, 11:55 AM
So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to see
where that money goes:

- about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
- ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
- new mini-van
- new house
- trips
- other non-kid things

And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day
care, clothes, etc.

Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

Simpledog
July 18th 03, 01:31 AM
I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing
how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for
the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue stream
from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to 500
a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put 100
away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got wise,
and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good parent,
but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them? No.
Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A 2
door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.

There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money on,
while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.


"Test" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to
see
> where that money goes:
>
> - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> - new mini-van
> - new house
> - trips
> - other non-kid things
>
> And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day
> care, clothes, etc.
>
> Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

gini52
July 18th 03, 05:42 AM
"Jon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having
> both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for
> over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
> send the receipt?
==
My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child
support expenditures
should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only
place there is room for
misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle award.
You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good hands.
==
==
>
>

Tracy
July 18th 03, 05:44 AM
"Jon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having
> both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for
> over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
> send the receipt?


No - a postcard of you and your wife having dinner at the wonderful
restaurant. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Simpledog
July 18th 03, 06:14 AM
Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.


"Jon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After having
> both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage for
> over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
should
> send the receipt?
>
>

Test
July 18th 03, 01:28 PM
I asked my ex if she had started a RESP (education savings plan in Canada).
She replied there was not enough money. Where is my CHILD support of $1000
going???

I like the accountability thing.

In article >, "Simpledog"
> wrote:
>I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
>then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing
>how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for
>the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue stream
>from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to 500
>a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put 100
>away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got wise,
>and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good parent,
>but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them? No.
>Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A 2
>door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
>
>There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money on,
>while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
>non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
>
>
>"Test" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
>> So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to
>see
>> where that money goes:
>>
>> - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
>> - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
>> - new mini-van
>> - new house
>> - trips
>> - other non-kid things
>>
>> And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day
>> care, clothes, etc.
>>
>> Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.
>
>

Tracy
July 18th 03, 04:49 PM
"Zimm" > wrote in message
...
> That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
> like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
> How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
> grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?
>
> I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
> the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
> she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.
>
> Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!


I feel the real issue isn't knowing exactly where the money went, but the
idea of having a say on how much is spent. I'm sure many wouldn't feel they
need to see receipts if they were paying what they believe is reasonable
child support. In other words, if he was paying the original agreed amount
of $500/month he may feel there is no need for accountability because he had
a say in the amount. To him $500/month is fair, and it will be used to
support his kids. But when the state jumped in and said $1,000/month - then
things took a turn for the worse. He couldn't see justification in
$1,000/month. You can expect the custodial parent to jump through hoops
"proving" where the money went, but will that really solve the real issue?
What is the real issue? Would he really feel better handing over
$1,000/month in child support if she could show where that money is going?
Or would he really feel better handing over $$$ in child support if he had a
*say* in how much and possibly where it was going? I would much rather see
direct involvement on the part of the NCP. In other words, an agreement
that they'll pay for certain items directly.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

July 18th 03, 05:34 PM
Simpledog > wrote:
: I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
: then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing
: how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for

I'd favor a checking account with both parties having visibility of where
the money is going. However, with today's "standard of living" child support,
it's a given that the mother's standard of living will increase as a result
of receiving CS in order for the child to realize the same standard of living
that would have been had should both parents live under the same roof.

As others have mentioned, the father's "new" standard of living decreases
but the court doesn't care.

I suspect we'd never see this because the courts don't want to be inundated
with allegations of improper usage of CS money. For the same reasons,
they opted for no fault divorce. They just don't want to become involved
at the detail leve in the CS money management.

b.

Simpledog
July 19th 03, 02:37 AM
No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time, to
the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't exactly
what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and sends
1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take
home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids?
There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are compliant
in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the
children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being
used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the
question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids had
nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with
each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court
summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex
putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my
girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new
car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids
needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new
home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh.




"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
> yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
> children during the 2+ years he had custody...
>
> do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only
> support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
*have
> to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
> easily. *snicker*
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
> "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.
> >
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
> having
> > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
> for
> > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> > should
> > > send the receipt?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

Simpledog
July 19th 03, 02:43 AM
I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't being used
for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge the
college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all the
things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way past
the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge to ask
her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was moot,
as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day. So, it
mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the 'guideline'
amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all the
extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra 600 bucks
laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls that
he's not able to do those things anymore.


"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:FGURa.92094$H17.28568@sccrnsc02...
> "Zimm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
> > like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
> > How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
> > grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?
> >
> > I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
> > the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
> > she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.
> >
> > Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!
>
>
> I feel the real issue isn't knowing exactly where the money went, but the
> idea of having a say on how much is spent. I'm sure many wouldn't feel
they
> need to see receipts if they were paying what they believe is reasonable
> child support. In other words, if he was paying the original agreed
amount
> of $500/month he may feel there is no need for accountability because he
had
> a say in the amount. To him $500/month is fair, and it will be used to
> support his kids. But when the state jumped in and said $1,000/month -
then
> things took a turn for the worse. He couldn't see justification in
> $1,000/month. You can expect the custodial parent to jump through hoops
> "proving" where the money went, but will that really solve the real issue?
> What is the real issue? Would he really feel better handing over
> $1,000/month in child support if she could show where that money is going?
> Or would he really feel better handing over $$$ in child support if he had
a
> *say* in how much and possibly where it was going? I would much rather
see
> direct involvement on the part of the NCP. In other words, an agreement
> that they'll pay for certain items directly.
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

Mel Gamble
July 19th 03, 04:37 AM
Just like my daughter's mother...

>No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time, to
>the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't exactly
>what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and sends
>1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take
>home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids?
>There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are compliant
>in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the
>children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being
>used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the
>question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids had
>nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with
>each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court
>summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex
>putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my
>girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new
>car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids
>needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new
>home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh.

....used her income tax "refund" - you know, the kind they give to people who
didn't pay in in the first place - and made a down payment on a Jeep. 5
seats...for her AND 5 kids. Fortunately (?) the oldest son at 12 is doing his
own thing most of the time and rarely goes with them.

Mel Gamble

>"Tracy" > wrote in message
>news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
>> yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
>> children during the 2+ years he had custody...
>>
>> do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the only
>> support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
>*have
>> to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
>> easily. *snicker*
>>
>>
>> Tracy
>> ~~~~~~~
>> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
>> "You can't solve problems with the same
>> type of thinking that created them."
>> Albert Einstein
>>
>> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>>
>>
>> "Simpledog" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Jon" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> > >
>> > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
>> having
>> > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
>> for
>> > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
>> > should
>> > > send the receipt?

Bob Whiteside
July 19th 03, 06:15 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Be sure you explain to them ...
>
> >I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't being
used
> >for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge the
> >college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all the
> >things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way past
> >the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge to
ask
> >her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was
moot,
> >as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day. So, it
> >mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the
'guideline'
> >amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all the
> >extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra 600
bucks
> >laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls that
> >he's not able to do those things anymore.
>
> ... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE can do
> those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get all
the
> same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should remind
mom
> that she's now supposed to be supplying those things.

I endorse this strategy 100%. If the father's discretionary spending on the
children is curtailed by an increase in his CS payments to the mother, it is
only fair the father let the children know the money he used to spend on the
children is now money the mother has available to spend on them.

This is how children learn about the impact of CS awards on their fathers
and how the money flows post-divorce. It is an opportunity for fathers to
teach their children about the financial realities of CS money and show
their children how mothers get money they used to spend on the children.

There is nothing wrong with a father telling his children you need to get
your mother to buy all the extras now because I pay her the money through CS
that I used to spend on you.

frazil
July 19th 03, 06:46 AM
gini52 > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
having
> > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
for
> > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> should
> > send the receipt?
> ==
> My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child
> support expenditures
> should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only
> place there is room for
> misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
award.
> You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
> Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
hands.
> ==
> ==

You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue
that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point. It
seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things. It
wouldn't require her to detail every meal, clothing purchase, etc. But it
would require her to show that she did buy the extra things that she used to
justify such a high CS amount. For example, if the CP was awarded an add-on
for horseback riding lessons, I see nothing wrong with requiring the CP to
provide reciepts for the lessons. Same thing for a daycare add-on. Daycare
expenses are variable. A good commercial daycare facility can cost around
$900.00/month, while an unlicensed informal daycare situation may cost as
little as $400/month.

What would be the argument against requiring CPs to provide reciepts for the
add-on items used to increase CS awards beyond the guideline formula, not
that the guideline formula is reasonable, mind you (actually for lower
income people it may be reasonable, except for the pesky fact that they have
a low income). Such an arrangement, would be no more burdensome than the
IRS requirement to provide the receipts for your charitable deductions, if
they ask. Ganted the NCP will probably ask for the receipts every year.

Sorry for the rambling. But I think this idea would be a good compromise
between requiring receipts for everything and not requiring receipts for
anything.

frazil
July 19th 03, 07:14 AM
It wouldn't be complicated if you limited the requirement to the add-on
items that increase the CS award beyond the guideline formula. The
guideline formula amount required from the NCP and attributed to the CP is
supposed to cover the child's grocery bill, gasoline usage, utility usage,
clothing, and other basic trappings of raising a child. At lower income
levels, it may not cover these items, but at high income levels it more than
covers them. I don't think requiring an accounting of the add-ons would be
complicated at all, for a couple of reasons. First, there wouldn't be many
of them. Second, the add-on costs would be separate and distinct from
something like a utility bill or grocery bill, and thus easily partitioned
between CP and child.

Zimm > wrote in message
...
> That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
> like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
> How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
> grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?
>
> I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
> the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
> she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.
>
> Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!
>
> Zimm
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
> > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts,
showing
> > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money
for
> > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue
stream
> > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to
500
> > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put
100
> > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got
wise,
> > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good
parent,
> > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them?
No.
> > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A
2
> > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> >
> > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money
on,
> > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
> > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> >
> >
> > "Test" > wrote in message
> > ble.rogers.com...
> >
> >>So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning
to
> >
> > see
> >
> >>where that money goes:
> >>
> >>- about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> >>- ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> >>- new mini-van
> >>- new house
> >>- trips
> >>- other non-kid things
> >>
> >>And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan,
day
> >>care, clothes, etc.
> >>
> >>Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.
> >
> >
> >
>

frazil
July 19th 03, 07:31 AM
Tracy > wrote in message
news:FGURa.92094$H17.28568@sccrnsc02...
> "Zimm" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
> > like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
> > How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
> > grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?
> >
> > I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
> > the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
> > she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.
> >
> > Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!
>
>
> I feel the real issue isn't knowing exactly where the money went, but the
> idea of having a say on how much is spent. I'm sure many wouldn't feel
they
> need to see receipts if they were paying what they believe is reasonable
> child support. In other words, if he was paying the original agreed
amount
> of $500/month he may feel there is no need for accountability because he
had
> a say in the amount. To him $500/month is fair, and it will be used to
> support his kids. But when the state jumped in and said $1,000/month -
then
> things took a turn for the worse. He couldn't see justification in
> $1,000/month. You can expect the custodial parent to jump through hoops
> "proving" where the money went, but will that really solve the real issue?
> What is the real issue? Would he really feel better handing over
> $1,000/month in child support if she could show where that money is going?
> Or would he really feel better handing over $$$ in child support if he had
a
> *say* in how much and possibly where it was going? I would much rather
see
> direct involvement on the part of the NCP. In other words, an agreement
> that they'll pay for certain items directly.

Tracy, what you say is partially correct. Yes, having a say would make it
easier. But, that say is only as good as the CP's willingness to allow that
say. If push comes to shove, the CP will prevail, because the money is in
the CP's control and the NCP's only recourse, in the event of disagreement,
is going to court. I see little reason to spend money going to court to
prevent the CP spending the money in the manner she chooses. IOW, even if
the NCP prevails in court and prevents the CP from spending the CS in a
manner contrary to the NCP's wishes, the CP still has the money to spend in
other ways. No sense throwing good money after bad money.


> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

Batch File
July 19th 03, 08:08 AM
Don't feel so bad. My arrears for three years alone pay for her house
completely. Yet she gets to keep the profit and I don't even have enough
left over to rent a mud hut.


"Simpledog" > wrote in message
...
> No, you shouldn't. As I said, most of the money goes, most of the time,
to
> the children, in most of the cases. Your situation, if true, isn't
exactly
> what my point is based on. If a man makes 4000 a month take home, and
sends
> 1500 of that a month to his ex wife who makes roughly 3000 a month take
> home, do you really think that 1500 bucks is going to raise those kids?
> There is a HUGE infrastructure to ensure men and/or women NCPs are
compliant
> in paying, but there is absolutely NO mechanism in place (unless the
> children are wildly neglected) to make sure that money is in effect, being
> used to raise the kids. That's my point. Why are receipts so out of the
> question? What other system could be better? In my situation, my kids
had
> nice clothes, went to Sea World, had fun, got good grades, spent time with
> each parent, etc. Then, about 3 years after the divorce, WHAM-O, court
> summons for 'Modification of CS'. So, I get my CS doubled. Is my ex
> putting money away for college? No. Is my ex putting money away for my
> girls first car? No. She went out, upgraded her house, and bought a new
> car. Does she mistreat them? No. Does she love them? Yes. My kids
> needed nothing extra, that money, pure and simple, is paying off her new
> home and her new car. I mean, she bought a 2 door sports coupe. Sheesh.
>
>
>
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
> > yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
> > children during the 2+ years he had custody...
> >
> > do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the
only
> > support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
> *have
> > to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
> > easily. *snicker*
> >
> >
> > Tracy
> > ~~~~~~~
> > http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> > "You can't solve problems with the same
> > type of thinking that created them."
> > Albert Einstein
> >
> > *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
> >
> >
> > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
> > having
> > > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
> > for
> > > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> > > should
> > > > send the receipt?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>

gini52
July 19th 03, 12:04 PM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
> having
> > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous marriage
> for
> > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> > should
> > > send the receipt?
> > ==
> > My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for child
> > support expenditures
> > should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the only
> > place there is room for
> > misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
> award.
> > You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
> > Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
> hands.
> > ==
> > ==
>
> You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would argue
> that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
> problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
> debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
> Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
> The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
> vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point.
It
> seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
> especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
> have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things.
===
So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax deductions--I
have boxes of them.
If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order an
audit and, the
judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify
expenditures
is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There
is simply no excuse
to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards.
===
===

frazil
July 19th 03, 03:40 PM
gini52 > wrote in message
...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > gini52 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
> > having
> > > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
> > for
> > > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> > > should
> > > > send the receipt?
> > > ==
> > > My opinion and the opinion of some here is that accountibility for
child
> > > support expenditures
> > > should be mandated for lifestyle support awards only as that is the
only
> > > place there is room for
> > > misuse. I don't believe the 75.00 you receive constitutes a lifestyle
> > award.
> > > You and your wife deserved the dinner out.
> > > Hope you had a great time :-). It sounds like those boys are in good
> > hands.
> > > ==
> > > ==
> >
> > You draw an important distinction. I don't think anyone here would
argue
> > that $75 per month covers even half of the cost of raising a child. The
> > problem comes as CS amounts escalate. At some point, and that point is
> > debatable, the amount of CS exceeds the cost of raising the child.
> > Recently, Jim Carey's ex asked for CS in the range of $25,000 per month.
> > The ex asked for him to pay for pilatie machines, dance lessons, exotic
> > vacations, etc. I'm sure he can afford it. But that is not the point.
> It
> > seems perfectly reasonable to me, that once CS exceed a certain amount,
> > especially when the amount is justified based on things most kids don't
> > have, the CP should be required to furnish reciepts for such things.
> ===
> So many complain that CS accountability would be a bureaucratic nightmare.
> I see it as being no different from providing receipts for tax
deductions--I
> have boxes of them.
> If the NCP suspects CS is being spent inappropriately, a judge can order
an
> audit and, the
> judge should not be given wide discretion. Providing receipts to justify
> expenditures
> is not a radical idea. It is required of foster parents and the IRS. There
> is simply no excuse
> to not require it to justify lifestyle child support awards.
> ===
> ===

I tend to agree with you. But I'd also be willing to find a compromise
solution. One possible compromise would be to only require receipts when
the CS award exceeds a certain amount or for any add-on expenses included in
the CS award.

Bob Whiteside
July 19th 03, 05:00 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Be sure you explain to them ...
> > >
> > > >I totally agree. In my situation, I know all of that money isn't
being
> > used
> > > >for the kids. And you have hit it on the head, I showed the judge
the
> > > >college money I was putting away, I showed the judge receipts for all
the
> > > >things I bought for them (computers, clothes) etc. I was paying way
past
> > > >the guidelines, because I am involved, and I care. I asked the judge
to
> > ask
> > > >her where are the equivalents on her side. Of course, the point was
> > moot,
> > > >as Family Law judges just want to clear their case load that day.
So, it
> > > >mattered not. Dissomaster was run, and I was ordered to pay the
> > 'guideline'
> > > >amount. Did my ex 'counsel' my daughters that Mom is paying for all
the
> > > >extra's now? Nooo.......but dad, who didn't really have the extra
600
> > bucks
> > > >laying around like old socks to spend, has to break it to the girls
that
> > > >he's not able to do those things anymore.
> > >
> > > ... that the judge is forcing you to send the money to mommy so SHE
can do
> > > those things for them with YOUR/THEIR money, so they should still get
all
> > the
> > > same things. If the things don't show up on schedule - they should
remind
> > mom
> > > that she's now supposed to be supplying those things.
> >
> > I endorse this strategy 100%.
>
> Do you endorse a similar strategy on the part of the CP in cases where the
NCP
> doesn't pay the CS?

No. Unfortunately you are mixing increases in CS money being spent and how
that money is distributed between the parents, with non-payment of CS and
money that is not being transferred between the parents. Our legal system
makes the assumption non-payment of CS by an NCP is made up for by the CP
parent replacing any CS money not received with their own money. IOW - the
children do not suffer any adverse affect for non-payment of CS. If a CP
were to make the complaint you suggested, they would be falsely representing
the legal precedence of their circumstance to the children.

Arrearages are routinely assigned to the CP only under this legal principle
and where this really shows is when payments are made directly to an adult
child. If arrearages occur, they accrue to the CP, not the child, even
though the child is named as the "pay to" party for the CS. Another example
is when CS arrearages are still being paid to the CP after the children are
grown and no longer in the CP's household. The CP is the judgment creditor
and the children have no claim to CS money.

If a CP were to complain about non-payment of CS to their children causing
them to suffer adverse affects they would be making a complaint to the
children that could not be backed up in the law. When an NCP tells his
children he is paying more money to their mother so she can spend more on
them, he is making a statement that can be backed up in the law.

>
> Would that be ok with you too? Or is it only permissible for dad to say
things
> like this?

See above.

Tracy
July 21st 03, 03:26 AM
"Simpledog" > wrote in message
...
> No, you shouldn't.

Not *I*. I wasn't talking about me. I wouldn't hand over anything to my
ex, nor would I even question if I should.


> As I said,

"As you said"??? Said what??? Shall we review what *you* said to Jon? The
comment *you* made to Jon was a snide remark directed at him concerning him
spending $75 on a dinner.

Your words to Jon, "Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the
child." <== that after he clearly stated he received his *first* child
support check *after* raising his son plus his ex's son (Jon's
"ex"-step-son) for two years straight.

So what was it that you said? What was it that *I* replied to?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:JtMRa.86923$H17.28167@sccrnsc02...
> > yeah... just like it is highly unlike he spent anything over $75 on two
> > children during the 2+ years he had custody...
> >
> > do you honestly believe he should hand over a receipt after being the
only
> > support of those children for more than two years? If so, he doesn't
> *have
> > to* hand over *that* receipt. The grocery bill should satisfy the $75
> > easily. *snicker*
> >
> > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Yeah, because you obviously didn't spend it on the child.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Jon" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > I received my first $75.00 child support payment last month. After
> > having
> > > > both my bio son and his mother's natural son from a previous
marriage
> > for
> > > > over two years. I spent mine on a dinner out with my wife. Think I
> > > should
> > > > send the receipt?

Kenneth S.
July 21st 03, 01:17 PM
Zimm raises valid problems about the mechanics of accountability for
"child support." They are valid problems, but they are not insoluble
problems. Ways are found of solving them in other contexts. (For
example, there are all kinds of accounting, and specifically tax,
situations where it is necessary to keep records and make some kind of
-- inevitably somewhat arbitrary -- decision about the proportion of
overheads to be assigned to particular uses.)

Where there's a will, there's a way.

So why DON'T we have accountability for "child support." The answer is
simple. The group that wants accountability consists of divorced and
unmarried fathers. They are not a special interest group that
politicians, judges, or bureaucrats have to pay any attention to.

Having accountability would be a way of proving to fathers that the
system does not discriminate against them. The price for accountability
would have to be paid by mothers. That price would consist not only of
the trouble of keeping rudimentary records about how they spend the
money fathers have to pay them. In the longer term, the price
potentially also could consist of the revisions that would result to
"child support" guidelines when the degree of hidden alimony in current
CS arrangements became abundantly clear. Why should mothers pay that
price? Who cares about whether fathers think the system is fair or not?

As in so many matters connected with CS and custody, the FIRST step is
for fathers have to make themselves into a politically significant
special interest group. Until that happens, there will be no change.
The problems about accountability are not technical -- they're
political.


Zimm wrote:
>
> That sounds real good but it would be so complicated. What about things
> like electricity? Surely the kid would use some (teenagers use ALOT).
> How would you figure out how much that is? Would you itemize every
> grocery bill, gas mileage for going to/from little league?
>
> I know it's hard but try to look at it this way, if she spent some of
> the money to buy a new home, your child is in a nice, cozy house. If
> she spent it on a new car, the kid is riding in a safe vehicle.
>
> Yes, I know. I've made looking a the bright side a rare form of art!
>
> Zimm
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
> > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts, showing
> > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money for
> > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue stream
> > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to 500
> > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put 100
> > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got wise,
> > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good parent,
> > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them? No.
> > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A 2
> > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> >
> > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money on,
> > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
> > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> >
> >
> > "Test" > wrote in message
> > ble.rogers.com...
> >
> >>So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning to
> >
> > see
> >
> >>where that money goes:
> >>
> >>- about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> >>- ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> >>- new mini-van
> >>- new house
> >>- trips
> >>- other non-kid things
> >>
> >>And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan, day
> >>care, clothes, etc.
> >>
> >>Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.
> >
> >
> >

Her Bank
July 23rd 03, 10:57 PM
I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
stuff.

I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
"I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
finances their business.

SS

Bob Whiteside
July 24th 03, 01:20 AM
"Her Bank" > wrote in message
om...
> I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> stuff.
>
> I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> finances their business.

So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick
and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the
items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I
can't afford that?"

That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the
dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play
her games.

I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this
game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications
she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad
has to put a stop to the games.

Kenneth S.
July 24th 03, 03:03 AM
Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > stuff.
> >
> > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > finances their business.
>
> So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick
> and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the
> items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I
> can't afford that?"
>
> That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the
> dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
> being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play
> her games.
>
> I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this
> game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications
> she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
> expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad
> has to put a stop to the games.

I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said
for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the
mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than
"give this to your mother."

Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how
much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases,
as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even
the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have
to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money
to the mother.

frazil
July 24th 03, 05:35 AM
Kenneth S. > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > > finances their business.
> >
> > So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to
pick
> > and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for
the
> > items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say
"I
> > can't afford that?"
> >
> > That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and
the
> > dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
> > being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and
play
> > her games.
> >
> > I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays
this
> > game when the children are too young to be taught the financial
implications
> > she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
> > expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the
dad
> > has to put a stop to the games.
>
> I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said
> for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the
> mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than
> "give this to your mother."
>
> Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how
> much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases,
> as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even
> the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have
> to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money
> to the mother.

In my life, I've discovered that it isn't so much what you say, but how you
say it. I would never tell my child that "I can't afford that". But I
would have no problem letting them know that whatever mom can afford them, I
afford them. IOW, a subtle way of telling them that I have contributed to
everything mom and child have. My rationale is that, since the CS I pay is
co-mingled with the her income, and since she has no requirement to show she
contributed her assumed amount, or how any (mine and her's)of it is spent, a
portion of every dollar she spends is attributable to me. That fact would
bother the crap out of me.

Failure to have to account for how CS received from the NCP is spent, means
that every dollar the CP spends, is partly her money and partly the NCP's
money. Which means that the NCP has helped pay for everything spent on the
child, but also the total of everything the CP spent on herself, and
everything she spent on the both of you.

I wonder how a CP feels knowing that the NCP has helped pay for everything
she spends. It would seem to me that a CP's self-esteem demands that the CP
be able to distinguish between what she alone has paid for, and what we (CP
and NCP) have jointly paid for. At the least, it seems that CPs should have
the right to claim credit for what they are due. The current laws deny them
the ability to claim their contribution.

Geeze, CP's if you are receiving CS, Why do you resist accounting for how
the CS received is spent. Your resistance, doesn't allow you to claim the
credit due to you., doesn't allow you have the satisfaction of independence,
etc. I don't get it! What is the satisfaction?

Self-esteem, and all of the associated benefits, depends on one's ability to
claim sole credit for their actions. Not accounting for how the CS they
receive is spent, denies a CP the ability to claim sole credit, and
consequently the deserved self-esteem, because any money they spend is
commingled between the CP and NCP.

Bob Whiteside
July 24th 03, 06:15 AM
"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> >
> > "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > > finances their business.
> >
> > So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to
pick
> > and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for
the
> > items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say
"I
> > can't afford that?"
> >
> > That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and
the
> > dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
> > being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and
play
> > her games.
> >
> > I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays
this
> > game when the children are too young to be taught the financial
implications
> > she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
> > expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the
dad
> > has to put a stop to the games.
>
> I know that some will disagree, but I think there's a lot to be said
> for giving the children the "child support" check to take back to the
> mother after a visitation period. Nothing needs to be said other than
> "give this to your mother."
>
> Over the years, the children will get the picture. They will know how
> much money is being paid over by the father. Of course, in many cases,
> as a result of the federal Family Support Act, fathers are denied even
> the opportunity of indicating where the money is coming from. They have
> to pay the state "child support" agency, which then dispenses the money
> to the mother.

And that is why fathers have to teach their children the money mom's get
from the state is really the father's money. The middleman money changers
have removed the fathers from involvement in the support of their children.

Fathers must teach their children what they pay and how much they pay, and
to recognize the money in the envelope from the state CS program is really
money the father provided.

When mothers suggest fathers should never show their children how much they
are providing in CS money I get irate!

TeacherMama
July 24th 03, 06:33 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message k.net>...
> "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > stuff.
> >
> > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > finances their business.
>
> So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick
> and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the
> items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I
> can't afford that?"
>
> That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the
> dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
> being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play
> her games.
>
> I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this
> game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications
> she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
> expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad
> has to put a stop to the games.

When my children ask for something that does not fit into our budget,
I explain about our budget--housing, food, etc--and how much
discretionary money is actually left at the end of each month. That
way they can see for themselves that the desired item is not
immediately available. (I don't go into great detail--just enough to
give them the idea) Why can't the NCP dad just generally present his
monthly budget to the kids, showing that there is just not enough left
for the extras they desire? In the budget will be the CS amount, but
it will be in with all the other obligations. And if they ask why he
used to be able to, but now can't--he can show them. Mom doesn't have
to be criticized at all--let the kids draw their own conclusions. I
see no reason that CS should be some hush-hush thing between parents.
It shouldn't be a baseball bat for one parent to pound the other
with--but it shouldn't be some big secret, either. And Mom is just as
free to sit the kids down and present her general budget (including
CS) and demonstrate what they can and can't afford at her house. The
kids shouldn't be in the middle, but they shouldn't be in the dark,
either!

Moon Shyne
July 24th 03, 10:23 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > stuff.
> >
> > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > finances their business.
>
> So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to pick
> and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for the
> items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say "I
> can't afford that?"

No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the items she
chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't afford
that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents have to say
it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no.


>
> That kind of approach sets to mom up to always be the "good" parent and the
> dad to always be the "bad" parent. I would hope you realize the dad is
> being reactive to the mom's set up and he should not just roll over and play
> her games.
>
> I agree with you somewhat for younger children, but if the mom plays this
> game when the children are too young to be taught the financial implications
> she is setting up the dad by her selective treatment of the children's
> expenses she chooses to pay for in the long term. Sooner or later the dad
> has to put a stop to the games.
>
>

Bob Whiteside
July 24th 03, 05:37 PM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > > stuff.
> > >
> > > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > > finances their business.
> >
> > So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to
pick
> > and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for
the
> > items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say
"I
> > can't afford that?"
>
> No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the items
she
> chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't
afford
> that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents have
to say
> it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no.

There are two possibilities where children ask their NCP dad's to buy things
for them. One is where the child sees something and wants it on the spur of
the moment. The second is when the CP mom tells the kids to ask their dad
to buy something they want or need during their visitation time.

Examples - Mom said there is a sale at the Coat Barn this weekend and to see
if you can buy us new Winter coats since you make a lot more money than she
does. Or - Mom doesn't have the money to buy us new soccer shoes right now.
She said to see if you can buy us new shoes this weekend since you have
enough money to get a new car you must have money to buy us shoes. Or - I
need to get a present to take to the birthday party. Mom didn't have time
to take me shopping. She said to have you spend $12-15.

I kept track of all the extras items I bought and took the list to a
modification hearing and asked for a CS credit. The judge told me all of
those expenditures were "gifts" I bought voluntarily and I could not get
credit for buying the items. So I told my ex if she wanted me to take the
children shopping she needed to send over the money with them.

Her Bank
July 24th 03, 06:13 PM
I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older,
at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as
to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine,
that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached
to his head.

>And that is why fathers have to teach their
>children the money mom's get from the state is
>really the father's money.

They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
"state".

When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have
formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was
doing what financially.

I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not
even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good would
that have been?

SS

Her Bank
July 24th 03, 09:50 PM
>Examples - Mom said there is a sale at the
>Coat Barn this weekend and to see if you can
>buy us new Winter coats since you make a lot
>more money than she does. Or - Mom doesn't
>have the money to buy us new soccer shoes
>right now. She said to see if you can buy us
>new shoes this weekend since you have
>enough money to get a new car you must have
>money to buy us shoes. Or - I need to get a
>present to take to the birthday party. Mom didn't
>have time to take me shopping. She said to
>have you spend $12-15.

Well Bob, you've got me there. Those examples would be awfully hard to
deal with without bringing the cs arrangements into. Shame, shame, shame
on any CP who would do that!!

SS

Moon Shyne
July 24th 03, 11:13 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > > > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > > > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
> > > > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
> > > > stuff.
> > > >
> > > > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > > > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
> > > > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
> > > > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
> > > > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > > > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > > > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
> > > > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > > > finances their business.
> > >
> > > So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to
> pick
> > > and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay for
> the
> > > items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just say
> "I
> > > can't afford that?"
> >
> > No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the items
> she
> > chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't
> afford
> > that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents have
> to say
> > it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no.
>
> There are two possibilities where children ask their NCP dad's to buy things
> for them. One is where the child sees something and wants it on the spur of
> the moment. The second is when the CP mom tells the kids to ask their dad
> to buy something they want or need during their visitation time.
>
> Examples - Mom said there is a sale at the Coat Barn this weekend and to see
> if you can buy us new Winter coats since you make a lot more money than she
> does. Or - Mom doesn't have the money to buy us new soccer shoes right now.
> She said to see if you can buy us new shoes this weekend since you have
> enough money to get a new car you must have money to buy us shoes. Or - I
> need to get a present to take to the birthday party. Mom didn't have time
> to take me shopping. She said to have you spend $12-15.
>
> I kept track of all the extras items I bought and took the list to a
> modification hearing and asked for a CS credit. The judge told me all of
> those expenditures were "gifts" I bought voluntarily and I could not get
> credit for buying the items. So I told my ex if she wanted me to take the
> children shopping she needed to send over the money with them.

On the other hand, there are those of us CP's who *did* send the money when dad
agreed to take a child for a haircut, or for summer clothes....... to have the
child some home with uncut hair and no new clothes....... and amazingly enough,
the money wasn't returned, either.


>
>

Tracy
July 25th 03, 04:28 AM
"Her Bank" > wrote in message
...
> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older,
> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as
> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine,
> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached
> to his head.
>
> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> >really the father's money.
>
> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
> "state".
>
> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have
> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was
> doing what financially.
>
> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not
> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good would
> that have been?


Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a parent is
doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the child
problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is playing
games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to leave
your child out of the games and not play with them.

I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father. In
fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and our son)
talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept. Right?
Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily intact, that
talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.

Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of any issue
you have with your ex.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Chris
July 25th 03, 06:39 AM
"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > thlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
> > > > > respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
> > > > > they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going
to
> > > > > the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them
the
> > > > > stuff.
> > > > >
> > > > > I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
> > > > > shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two
parents
> > > > > and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to
resent
> > > > > one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as
bad
> > > > > as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
> > > > > daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
> > > > > bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the
child
> > > > > "I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
> > > > > finances their business.
> > > >
> > > > So the mom with the money to buy all the discretionary items gets to
> > pick
> > > > and choose which items she pays for but sends the kids to dad to pay
for
> > the
> > > > items she chooses not to pay for. And the dad is supposed to just
say
> > "I
> > > > can't afford that?"
> > >
> > > No one has suggested that mom "sends the kids to dad to pay for the
items
> > she
> > > chooses not to pay for" except you. Moms have to say "sorry, we can't
> > afford
> > > that, just like dads have to say it, just like still-married parents
have
> > to say
> > > it, and no child ever suffered permanent damage from being told no.
> >
> > There are two possibilities where children ask their NCP dad's to buy
things
> > for them. One is where the child sees something and wants it on the
spur of
> > the moment. The second is when the CP mom tells the kids to ask their
dad
> > to buy something they want or need during their visitation time.
> >
> > Examples - Mom said there is a sale at the Coat Barn this weekend and to
see
> > if you can buy us new Winter coats since you make a lot more money than
she
> > does. Or - Mom doesn't have the money to buy us new soccer shoes right
now.
> > She said to see if you can buy us new shoes this weekend since you have
> > enough money to get a new car you must have money to buy us shoes. Or -
I
> > need to get a present to take to the birthday party. Mom didn't have
time
> > to take me shopping. She said to have you spend $12-15.
> >
> > I kept track of all the extras items I bought and took the list to a
> > modification hearing and asked for a CS credit. The judge told me all
of
> > those expenditures were "gifts" I bought voluntarily and I could not get
> > credit for buying the items. So I told my ex if she wanted me to take
the
> > children shopping she needed to send over the money with them.
>
> On the other hand, there are those of us CP's who *did* send the money
when dad
> agreed to take a child for a haircut, or for summer clothes....... to have
the
> child some home with uncut hair and no new clothes....... and amazingly
enough,
> the money wasn't returned, either.

Better known as recovering STOLEN property.

>
>
> >
> >
>
>

Mel Gamble
July 25th 03, 09:10 AM
>I haven't posted here in a while but continue to lurk, and have to
>respond to Bob & Mel's comments re telling the children the reason
>they don't have extra money to spend on them is because it's going to
>the mother as CS and therefore, their mother should be buying them the
>stuff.
>
>I know exactly how you feel, but don't take that route. Kid's
>shouldn't be involved in those things. It's between the two parents
>and bringing the kids into it that way only encourages them to resent
>one parent or play one parent off the other. Doing that is just as bad
>as a CP telling her kids "you can't have such-in-such because your
>daddy doesn't give us enough money". Making the other parent the
>bad-guy in the child's eye doesn't help anyone. Simply tell the child
>"I can't afford that." - end of story. They're kids - don't make
>finances their business.
>
>SS

You are right, of course - it's always best to hide the truth from your kids
and let them think you've become a scrooge in the process........ And then
when they get old enough to know what was going on, you can count on them
having learned to just roll over and take it when somebody tries to f--k them
over.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
July 25th 03, 09:26 AM
It isn't a matter of the dollars...

>I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
>shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
>still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older,
>at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
>wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as
>to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine,
>that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
>afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
>shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached
>to his head.
>
>>And that is why fathers have to teach their
>>children the money mom's get from the state is
>>really the father's money.
>
>They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
>"state".
>
>When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
>heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have
>formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was
>doing what financially.

.... it's a matter of children learning how to be decent human beings and treat
other people well. I'll be damned if I'm going to let my daughter fall prey to
believing that the way her mother does things is the way a grown woman should
run her life - and her kids' lives. I won't wait until my daughter is a
screwed up mid-twenties to start teaching her what she should have learned when
she was 5 and 6. Shame on you for suggesting a child/young adult should be
deprived of the lessons parents are supposed to be teaching just so mommy won't
look as bad as she is.

>I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
>childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
>translated to being mom's fault for not contributing.

And how would you have felt if he suddenly stopped buying you new shoes each
year for school without telling you that the reason was court-ordered payment
to her - supposedly for the purpose of buying those same shoes, except she was
using it to buy cig's for herself? How would you have felt if he just rolled
over and allowed you to go without when he could have given you the knowledge
to ask her for those shoes?

>It wasn't until
>this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not
>even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
>would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good would
>that have been?

If finding out the truth about your mother would have made you hate her....any
love you felt for her was based on lies. Now how's THAT make you feel?

At least you were better off than what's being discussed here - you didn't lose
something you were used to having because she decided to start taking
additional money from your father....lucky you.

Mel Gamble

>SS
>
>
>
>

Mel Gamble
July 25th 03, 09:30 AM
But...

>"Her Bank" > wrote in message
...
>> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
>> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
>> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older,
>> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
>> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as
>> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine,
>> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
>> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
>> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached
>> to his head.
>>
>> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
>> >children the money mom's get from the state is
>> >really the father's money.
>>
>> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
>> "state".
>>
>> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
>> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have
>> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was
>> doing what financially.
>>
>> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
>> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
>> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
>> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not
>> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
>> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good would
>> that have been?
>
>
>Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a parent is
>doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the child
>problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
>lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is playing
>games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to leave
>your child out of the games and not play with them.
>
>I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father. In
>fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
>something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and our son)
>talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept. Right?
>Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily intact, that
>talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
>
>Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of any issue
>you have with your ex.

when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it is no
longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a parent's
job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too well when
you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about them. I'd
hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and decide
that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier and more
profitable.

Mel Gamble

>Tracy

Tracy
July 25th 03, 03:05 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> But...
>
> >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're older,
> >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation as
> >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with Moonshine,
> >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price attached
> >> to his head.
> >>
> >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> >> >really the father's money.
> >>
> >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
> >> "state".
> >>
> >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
> >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they have
> >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who was
> >> doing what financially.
> >>
> >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
> >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money, not
> >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
> >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
would
> >> that have been?
> >
> >
> >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a parent
is
> >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
child
> >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
playing
> >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to leave
> >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> >
> >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father. In
> >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and our
son)
> >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept. Right?
> >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily intact,
that
> >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> >
> >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of any
issue
> >you have with your ex.
>
> when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it is no
> longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
parent's
> job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too well
when
> you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about them.
I'd
> hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
decide
> that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier and
more
> profitable.


There are ways of bringing your daughter up with good values without putting
down mom in the process. You just leave mom out of it, and expose her to
good examples. You don't make comments concerning mom's character versus
anyone else's. The important thing to remember is to not say anything
negative about the other parent, or that parent's situation. Your daughter
will actually be better off being exposed to both worlds, because it may
help her to decide which way is really the best way. When she becomes a
teenager, or an adult, and starts showing signs of her mother's
character/choices - then you put your foot down and express your disapproval
in *her* choices, but don't blame mom. You start pointing the finger at mom
all you'll do is push her right into the direction you don't want her to go.
No child enjoys listening to negative crap about their parents, and when it
comes from a parent they find themselves caught in the middle. Don't do
it - just don't do it.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Her Bank
July 25th 03, 07:18 PM
>It isn't a matter of the dollars...
>... it's a matter of children learning how to be
>decent human beings and treat other people
>well.

Yes. And treating other people well should extend to the ex/other
parent. It hurts, but sometimes being the better man means having to
swallow your pride and not knock down the other person. Be the bigger
person and don't sink to your ex's level. Your kids will remember that
no matter what happened, you never said a bad word about their mother.
And they'll have all the more respect for you for it.

>How would you have felt if he just rolled over
>and allowed you to go without when he could
>have given you the knowledge to ask her for
>those shoes?

Interesting scenerio. But he didn't allow us to go without. He did
whatever he had to do, and that did NOT include involving the mother.
Telling us to go ask the mother (providing we even knew where she was),
that would have been akin to sending us out on the street to beg. You
don't make kids responsible for figuring out how they're going to get
what they need.

>If finding out the truth about your mother would
>have made you hate her....any
>love you felt for her was based on lies. Now
>how's THAT make you feel?

I didn't have any particular feeling for my mother as a kid because I
didn't know her. Had my Dad criticised her or otherwise made her look
bad, any negative feeling for her would have been as a result of my
Dad's attitude, not my own, and that wouldn't have been fair.
As it was, my Dad never said a bad thing about her. (He didn't say
anything good about her either. She just wasn't talked about.)
The result is that the relationship I have with my mother today is an
amicable one. It's not what I would think of as a typical warm
mother-child bond, but it's a friendly relationship, and I feel just
fine about that. And my Dad has my utmost respect for that.

>At least you were better off than what's being
>discussed here - you didn't lose something you
>were used to having because she decided to
>start taking additional money from your
>father....lucky you.

I am lucky. I had a parent who had enough honor and dignity and good
sense not to stoop to derogating the other parent or to putting me in
the middle of financial matters.

SS

Tracy
July 25th 03, 08:08 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But...
> >
> > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
older,
> > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation
as
> > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
Moonshine,
> > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
attached
> > >> to his head.
> > >>
> > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > >> >really the father's money.
> > >>
> > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
> > >> "state".
> > >>
> > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
> > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they
have
> > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who
was
> > >> doing what financially.
> > >>
> > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
> > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money,
not
> > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
> > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
> would
> > >> that have been?
> > >
> > >
> > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a parent
> is
> > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
> child
> > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> playing
> > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
leave
> > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > >
> > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father.
In
> > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and our
> son)
> > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
Right?
> > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily intact,
> that
> > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > >
> > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of any
> issue
> > >you have with your ex.
> >
> > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it is
no
> > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
> parent's
> > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too well
> when
> > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about them.
> I'd
> > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> decide
> > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier
and
> more
> > profitable.
>
> I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One would
> think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to be
> an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare and
> economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
to
> do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include their
> mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>
> One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as their
> teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
is
> going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
role
> model.


Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding to.
The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other parent.
It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

~August
July 25th 03, 09:45 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>
>
> I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One would
> think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to be
> an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare and
> economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
to
> do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include their
> mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>
> One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as their
> teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
is
> going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
role
> model.

You can inform the child so they understand why things are or arent a
certain way without "putting them in the middle", and you can explain why
your finaces are the way they are without "trashing" the other parent for
apparently making things that way. It all has to do with how the
message/information is delivered.

~August

Bob Whiteside
July 26th 03, 03:28 AM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > But...
> > >
> > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> older,
> > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
explanation
> as
> > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> Moonshine,
> > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> attached
> > > >> to his head.
> > > >>
> > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > >>
> > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
the
> > > >> "state".
> > > >>
> > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
for
> > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they
> have
> > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who
> was
> > > >> doing what financially.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
until
> > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money,
> not
> > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
probably
> > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
> > would
> > > >> that have been?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
parent
> > is
> > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
> > child
> > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > playing
> > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> leave
> > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > >
> > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father.
> In
> > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
our
> > son)
> > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> Right?
> > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
intact,
> > that
> > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > >
> > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
any
> > issue
> > > >you have with your ex.
> > >
> > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
is
> no
> > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
> > parent's
> > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
well
> > when
> > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
them.
> > I'd
> > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > decide
> > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier
> and
> > more
> > > profitable.
> >
> > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
would
> > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to
be
> > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
and
> > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
> to
> > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
their
> > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> >
> > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
their
> > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
> is
> > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> role
> > model.
>
>
> Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
to.
> The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other parent.
> It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...

That's a pretty strong response that runs contrary to independent,
non-partisan thinking on child development and the father's role in
children's lives. Take a look at:

http://www.childtrends.org/HomePg.asp

Click on "Research Briefs" and then "Fatherhood" to get an idea of how main
stream child development specialists view these issues. There are several
briefs to read. I'd recommend the brief titled "How do Social, Economic,
and Cultural Factors Influence Fathers' Involvement with Their Children."
Another brief that addresses this topic is titled "What Do Fathers
Contribute to Children's Well-Being?"

It is also fair to point out the brief titled "The Meaning of Father
Involvement For Children" supports your comments to some degree. In it the
authors report the concept of "Dad as Resource." They state, "There are
many ways that fathers fulfill the role of resource or 'behind the scenes
support.' For example, men can provide emotional support to mothers in
practical ways with the care of the children -- whether they live with the
mother or not."

The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether a
father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the father as
economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.

Tracy
July 28th 03, 06:25 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > arthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > But...
> > > >
> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
Dad
> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however,
I
> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> > older,
> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
they're
> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> explanation
> > as
> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > Moonshine,
> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
can't
> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
The
> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > attached
> > > > >> to his head.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
> the
> > > > >> "state".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
> for
> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
they
> > have
> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
who
> > was
> > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> until
> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
money,
> > not
> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> probably
> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
good
> > > would
> > > > >> that have been?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> parent
> > > is
> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
the
> > > child
> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth,
or
> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > > playing
> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> > leave
> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
father.
> > In
> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
for
> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
> our
> > > son)
> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > Right?
> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> intact,
> > > that
> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > >
> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
> any
> > > issue
> > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > >
> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
> is
> > no
> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of
a
> > > parent's
> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
> well
> > > when
> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> them.
> > > I'd
> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > > decide
> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
easier
> > and
> > > more
> > > > profitable.
> > >
> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> would
> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
to
> be
> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
> and
> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
anything
> > to
> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> their
> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > >
> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> their
> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
what
> > is
> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
the
> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> > role
> > > model.
> >
> >
> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
> to.
> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
parent.
> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
>
[snip]

> The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether a
> father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
> support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the father as
> economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.

I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and figure
out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel was
out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated (what
Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with money,
etc... it doesn't matter. I used my own personal situation with my youngest
son's father as an example because him and I don't play those games with our
son, and never have. Heck dear - tonight I receive pictures of his 9 month
old baby daughter after I sent dad pictures of our son during our last
camping trip with my boyfriend. You see, unlike many in this group, I have
a healthy relationship with my youngest son's father - and I happen to enjoy
sharing WHY I have that level of relationship with others in hope they will
learn from it and possibly someday experience that same level. I realize it
is probably too late for you... put there is time for others. With that in
mind, I happen to be dealing with a man in my life who is still learning how
to deal with his own strong emotions concerning what happened, while
learning how to be a parent to his kids... or a single parent, which is very
different than a parent who is married. We had a nice long talk about the
difference last night as he started to understand why it is difficult to
balance everything (home, work, kids, social life, friends, etc...etc...
etc.. ). I know you don't like hearing about my personal life - so...

Nothing I typed above (that Mel responded to) was anti-father, like you
*claimed*. Go back and read my response to you again - get a clue. I'm not
being anti-father by making the following statement, "Bottom-line: There is
no reason to put your child in the middle of any issue you have with your
ex." My statement is meant for both the custodial parent as well as the
non-custodial parent. My statement is meant for both the mother as well as
the father. There is nothing anti-father, or anti-mother, in my statement.
Instead it is 100% for the child, who is the only real innocent party
involved in the whole mess (aka divorce).

Any parent, father or mother, who puts their child in the middle of any
dispute is in the wrong! That parent is hurting their child, and personally
I hate to see any child suffer due to an adult who refuses to grow up!


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Mel Gamble
July 28th 03, 12:06 PM
No...

>>It isn't a matter of the dollars...
>>... it's a matter of children learning how to be
>>decent human beings and treat other people
>>well.
>
>Yes. And treating other people well should extend to the ex/other
>parent. It hurts, but sometimes being the better man means having to
>swallow your pride and not knock down the other person. Be the bigger
>person and don't sink to your ex's level. Your kids will remember that
>no matter what happened, you never said a bad word about their mother.
>And they'll have all the more respect for you for it.
>
>>How would you have felt if he just rolled over
>>and allowed you to go without when he could
>>have given you the knowledge to ask her for
>>those shoes?
>
>Interesting scenerio. But he didn't allow us to go without. He did
>whatever he had to do, and that did NOT include involving the mother.
>Telling us to go ask the mother (providing we even knew where she was),
>that would have been akin to sending us out on the street to beg. You
>don't make kids responsible for figuring out how they're going to get
>what they need.
>
>>If finding out the truth about your mother would
>>have made you hate her....any
>>love you felt for her was based on lies. Now
>>how's THAT make you feel?
>
>I didn't have any particular feeling for my mother as a kid because I
>didn't know her. Had my Dad criticised her or otherwise made her look
>bad, any negative feeling for her would have been as a result of my
>Dad's attitude, not my own, and that wouldn't have been fair.
>As it was, my Dad never said a bad thing about her. (He didn't say
>anything good about her either. She just wasn't talked about.)
>The result is that the relationship I have with my mother today is an
>amicable one. It's not what I would think of as a typical warm
>mother-child bond, but it's a friendly relationship, and I feel just
>fine about that. And my Dad has my utmost respect for that.
>
>>At least you were better off than what's being
>>discussed here - you didn't lose something you
>>were used to having because she decided to
>>start taking additional money from your
>>father....lucky you.
>
>I am lucky. I had a parent who had enough honor and dignity and good
>sense not to stoop to derogating the other parent or to putting me in
>the middle of financial matters.

You are lucky because you were beyond the bad influence of that other parent.
Many kids are not so lucky. You had ONLY a good example to follow, and your
father had NO bad example leading you in the wrong direction.

Believe me, if my daughter's mother would just disappear, I'd have nothing bad
to say about her....

Mel Gamble

>SS

Mel Gamble
July 28th 03, 12:29 PM
Tracy, what about your older boys' father? Have you never said anything
negative about the way he led his life or treated those boys? If not, you are
a better person - under your definition - than I am.

By the way, what would you do if your 8-year old came home from school telling
you that women in the colonies cooked, sewed, cleaned and had babies and the
school says that's all they should be doing today? Would you, as you suggested
in another post, just wait until they were grown and started treating women
poorly and THEN tell them they shouldn't be doing so? Or would you point out
the error of such teachings while they were still young and forming their views
of the world? As near as I can tell from your posts, when my daughter sees mom
desperately chasing after a guy who has thrown her down and choked her in front
of the kids, I should not say that mom - or any other woman - should never be
so desperate for somebody in their lives that they would settle for something
like that. As near as I can tell, you're suggesting that I should wait until
my girl is 18 and has been beaten a couple of times herself and THEN start
teaching her that she deserves better.

I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree on this one - I will NOT just
let my daughter grow up under the mistaken impression that mom's way is
acceptable. Yes, I can teach her my way and say nothing about mom's way, but
all that's going to do is give her the idea that EITHER way is "OK"...

Mel Gamble

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>>
>> "Tracy" > wrote in message
>> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > arthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > But...
>> > > >
>> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
>Dad
>> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however,
>I
>> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
>> > older,
>> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
>they're
>> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
>> explanation
>> > as
>> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
>> > Moonshine,
>> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
>can't
>> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
>The
>> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
>> > attached
>> > > > >> to his head.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
>> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
>> > > > >> >really the father's money.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
>> the
>> > > > >> "state".
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
>> for
>> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
>they
>> > have
>> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
>who
>> > was
>> > > > >> doing what financially.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
>> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
>> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
>> until
>> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
>money,
>> > not
>> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
>> probably
>> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
>good
>> > > would
>> > > > >> that have been?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
>> parent
>> > > is
>> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
>the
>> > > child
>> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth,
>or
>> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
>> > > playing
>> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
>> > leave
>> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
>father.
>> > In
>> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
>for
>> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
>> our
>> > > son)
>> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
>> > Right?
>> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
>> intact,
>> > > that
>> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
>> any
>> > > issue
>> > > > >you have with your ex.
>> > > >
>> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
>> is
>> > no
>> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of
>a
>> > > parent's
>> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
>> well
>> > > when
>> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
>> them.
>> > > I'd
>> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
>> > > decide
>> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
>easier
>> > and
>> > > more
>> > > > profitable.
>> > >
>> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
>> would
>> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
>to
>> be
>> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
>> and
>> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
>> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
>anything
>> > to
>> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
>> their
>> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>> > >
>> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
>> their
>> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
>what
>> > is
>> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
>the
>> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
>> > role
>> > > model.
>> >
>> >
>> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
>> to.
>> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
>parent.
>> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
>>
>[snip]
>
>> The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether a
>> father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
>> support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the father as
>> economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.
>
>I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and figure
>out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel was
>out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated (what
>Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
>well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
>child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with money,
>etc... it doesn't matter. I used my own personal situation with my youngest
>son's father as an example because him and I don't play those games with our
>son, and never have. Heck dear - tonight I receive pictures of his 9 month
>old baby daughter after I sent dad pictures of our son during our last
>camping trip with my boyfriend. You see, unlike many in this group, I have
>a healthy relationship with my youngest son's father - and I happen to enjoy
>sharing WHY I have that level of relationship with others in hope they will
>learn from it and possibly someday experience that same level. I realize it
>is probably too late for you... put there is time for others. With that in
>mind, I happen to be dealing with a man in my life who is still learning how
>to deal with his own strong emotions concerning what happened, while
>learning how to be a parent to his kids... or a single parent, which is very
>different than a parent who is married. We had a nice long talk about the
>difference last night as he started to understand why it is difficult to
>balance everything (home, work, kids, social life, friends, etc...etc...
>etc.. ). I know you don't like hearing about my personal life - so...
>
>Nothing I typed above (that Mel responded to) was anti-father, like you
>*claimed*. Go back and read my response to you again - get a clue. I'm not
>being anti-father by making the following statement, "Bottom-line: There is
>no reason to put your child in the middle of any issue you have with your
>ex." My statement is meant for both the custodial parent as well as the
>non-custodial parent. My statement is meant for both the mother as well as
>the father. There is nothing anti-father, or anti-mother, in my statement.
>Instead it is 100% for the child, who is the only real innocent party
>involved in the whole mess (aka divorce).
>
>Any parent, father or mother, who puts their child in the middle of any
>dispute is in the wrong! That parent is hurting their child, and personally
>I hate to see any child suffer due to an adult who refuses to grow up!
>
>
>Tracy

Bob Whiteside
July 28th 03, 10:47 PM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
. net...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > arthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > But...
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
> Dad
> > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
however,
> I
> > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
they're
> > > older,
> > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> they're
> > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > explanation
> > > as
> > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > Moonshine,
> > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> can't
> > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
> The
> > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > > attached
> > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
from
> > the
> > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
oppurtunity
> > for
> > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> they
> > > have
> > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
> who
> > > was
> > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
early
> > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> > until
> > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> money,
> > > not
> > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > probably
> > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> good
> > > > would
> > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> > parent
> > > > is
> > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
truth,
> or
> > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
is
> > > > playing
> > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
to
> > > leave
> > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> father.
> > > In
> > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
> for
> > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
and
> > our
> > > > son)
> > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > > Right?
> > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > intact,
> > > > that
> > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
of
> > any
> > > > issue
> > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > >
> > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
child....it
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
of
> a
> > > > parent's
> > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
too
> > well
> > > > when
> > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> > them.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
and
> > > > decide
> > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> easier
> > > and
> > > > more
> > > > > profitable.
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> > would
> > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
> to
> > be
> > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
welfare
> > and
> > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
increased
> > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> anything
> > > to
> > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> > their
> > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > >
> > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> > their
> > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
> what
> > > is
> > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
> the
> > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
and
> > > role
> > > > model.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
responding
> > to.
> > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> parent.
> > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >
> [snip]
>
> > The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether a
> > father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
> > support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the father
as
> > economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.
>
> I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and figure
> out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel was
> out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated (what
> Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
> well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
> child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with
money,
> etc... it doesn't matter.

Tracy - you stated what would be the ideal situation between divorced
parents. Mel and I are talking about what a father should do when the ideal
situation does not occur. Mel and I (and I think August and TeacherMomma
too) have all concurred fathers need to speak up when the ideal is not being
met. Speaking up and discussing the issues with the children does not
constitute "trashing" the mother. As Mel has pointed out several times, the
are instances where the issues involve an adult other than the bio-parents.

teachrmama
July 29th 03, 12:15 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > arthlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > But...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
...
> > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
that
> > Dad
> > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> however,
> > I
> > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> they're
> > > > older,
> > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> > they're
> > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > explanation
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> > can't
> > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
life.
> > The
> > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
price
> > > > attached
> > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> oppurtunity
> > > for
> > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced
by
> > who
> > > > was
> > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> early
> > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
never
> > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
wasn't
> > > until
> > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> > money,
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > > probably
> > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> > good
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing
a
> > > parent
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
causing
> > the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> truth,
> > or
> > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
> is
> > > > > playing
> > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
> to
> > > > leave
> > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> > father.
> > > > In
> > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
begging
> > for
> > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
> and
> > > our
> > > > > son)
> > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
concept.
> > > > Right?
> > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > > intact,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
> of
> > > any
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> child....it
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
> of
> > a
> > > > > parent's
> > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
> too
> > > well
> > > > > when
> > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
about
> > > them.
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
> and
> > > > > decide
> > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> > easier
> > > > and
> > > > > more
> > > > > > profitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
One
> > > would
> > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children
is
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> welfare
> > > and
> > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> increased
> > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> > anything
> > > > to
> > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
include
> > > their
> > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
as
> > > their
> > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
understand
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
for
> > the
> > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher

> and
> > > > role
> > > > > model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> responding
> > > to.
> > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > parent.
> > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether
a
> > > father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
> > > support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the
father
> as
> > > economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.
> >
> > I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and
figure
> > out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel
was
> > out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated
(what
> > Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
> > well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
> > child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with
> money,
> > etc... it doesn't matter.
>
> Tracy - you stated what would be the ideal situation between divorced
> parents. Mel and I are talking about what a father should do when the
ideal
> situation does not occur. Mel and I (and I think August and TeacherMomma
> too) have all concurred fathers need to speak up when the ideal is not
being
> met. Speaking up and discussing the issues with the children


And this is what I agree with--discussing *issues* with your children.
"Dad, I need a new____________ for school and Mom says to ask you." can
elicit a response of "Well, your Mom's a money -grubbing bitch. I pay
enough child support to cover that!" -or- it can be the catalyst to a
discussion on the budget and what does and does not fit in. If kid says
"Mom says you could afford to get me a new ____________ if you didn't get
that new car" --an opportunity is provided to demonstrate the reasons for
getting a new car vs the old car nickel-and- diming away the same amount of
money. Mom doesn't need to be trashed to discuss *issues*.


does not
> constitute "trashing" the mother. As Mel has pointed out several times,
the
> are instances where the issues involve an adult other than the
bio-parents.
>
>

Tracy
July 29th 03, 01:12 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
thlink.net...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> . net...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > thlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > arthlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > But...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
...
> > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
that
> > Dad
> > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> however,
> > I
> > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> they're
> > > > older,
> > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> > they're
> > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > explanation
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> > can't
> > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
life.
> > The
> > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
price
> > > > attached
> > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> oppurtunity
> > > for
> > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced
by
> > who
> > > > was
> > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> early
> > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
never
> > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
wasn't
> > > until
> > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> > money,
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > > probably
> > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> > good
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing
a
> > > parent
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
causing
> > the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> truth,
> > or
> > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
> is
> > > > > playing
> > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
> to
> > > > leave
> > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> > father.
> > > > In
> > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
begging
> > for
> > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
> and
> > > our
> > > > > son)
> > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
concept.
> > > > Right?
> > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > > intact,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
> of
> > > any
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> child....it
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
> of
> > a
> > > > > parent's
> > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
> too
> > > well
> > > > > when
> > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
about
> > > them.
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
> and
> > > > > decide
> > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> > easier
> > > > and
> > > > > more
> > > > > > profitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
One
> > > would
> > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children
is
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> welfare
> > > and
> > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> increased
> > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> > anything
> > > > to
> > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
include
> > > their
> > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
as
> > > their
> > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
understand
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
for
> > the
> > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
> and
> > > > role
> > > > > model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> responding
> > > to.
> > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > parent.
> > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about whether
a
> > > father should support a mother who is playing games with the financial
> > > support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the
father
> as
> > > economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.
> >
> > I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and
figure
> > out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel
was
> > out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated
(what
> > Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
> > well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
> > child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with
> money,
> > etc... it doesn't matter.
>
> Tracy - you stated what would be the ideal situation between divorced
> parents. Mel and I are talking about what a father should do when the
ideal
> situation does not occur.

Go back and read through the thread Bob. Go back to my response to "Her
Bank", then follow it. *I* didn't jump in on a conversation taking place
between YOU and Mel. Go and read your response and get a clue!


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
July 29th 03, 01:16 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> thlink.net...
> >
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > . net...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > thlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > arthlink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > But...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> ...
> > > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
> that
> > > Dad
> > > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> > however,
> > > I
> > > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> > they're
> > > > > older,
> > > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> > > they're
> > > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > > explanation
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told
'We
> > > can't
> > > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
> life.
> > > The
> > > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
> price
> > > > > attached
> > > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> > oppurtunity
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then,
AFTER
> > > they
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't
influenced
> by
> > > who
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> > early
> > > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
> never
> > > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
> wasn't
> > > > until
> > > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad
any
> > > money,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid,
I
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and
what
> > > good
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only
thing
> a
> > > > parent
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
> causing
> > > the
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> > truth,
> > > or
> > > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks.
It
> > is
> > > > > > playing
> > > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy
is
> > to
> > > > > leave
> > > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> > > father.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
> begging
> > > for
> > > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad,
myself,
> > and
> > > > our
> > > > > > son)
> > > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
> concept.
> > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families,
primarily
> > > > intact,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
> together.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the
middle
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> > child....it
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the
matter
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > > parent's
> > > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being
done
> > too
> > > > well
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
> about
> > > > them.
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role
model
> > and
> > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> > > easier
> > > > > and
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > profitable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
> One
> > > > would
> > > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their
children
> is
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> > welfare
> > > > and
> > > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> > increased
> > > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> > > anything
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
> include
> > > > their
> > > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
> as
> > > > their
> > > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
> understand
> > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as
teacher
>
> > and
> > > > > role
> > > > > > model.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> > responding
> > > > to.
> > > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > > parent.
> > > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > The issue here is not about "emotional support." It is about
whether
> a
> > > > father should support a mother who is playing games with the
financial
> > > > support of the children. The other briefs I cited deal with the
> father
> > as
> > > > economic provider issues and are the basis for many of my comments.
> > >
> > > I highly suggest you go back and read what I typed above again and
> figure
> > > out what I was driving at in my response to you. Your response to Mel
> was
> > > out in left field, if not way out in space - based on what I stated
> (what
> > > Mel responded to). My response was 100% geared towards the emotional
> > > well-being of a child based on parents who play games by putting their
> > > child(ren) in the middle of any dispute. If that dispute deals with
> > money,
> > > etc... it doesn't matter.
> >
> > Tracy - you stated what would be the ideal situation between divorced
> > parents. Mel and I are talking about what a father should do when the
> ideal
> > situation does not occur. Mel and I (and I think August and
TeacherMomma
> > too) have all concurred fathers need to speak up when the ideal is not
> being
> > met. Speaking up and discussing the issues with the children
>
>
> And this is what I agree with--discussing *issues* with your children.
> "Dad, I need a new____________ for school and Mom says to ask you." can
> elicit a response of "Well, your Mom's a money -grubbing bitch. I pay
> enough child support to cover that!" -or- it can be the catalyst to a
> discussion on the budget and what does and does not fit in. If kid says
> "Mom says you could afford to get me a new ____________ if you didn't get
> that new car" --an opportunity is provided to demonstrate the reasons for
> getting a new car vs the old car nickel-and- diming away the same amount
of
> money. Mom doesn't need to be trashed to discuss *issues*.


I totally agree with you. What I don't understand is why when I stated it,
Bob took it as "These same people advocate increased father involvement with
children, yet when that involvement has anything to do with the child's
understanding of financial matters that include their mother, the father's
role is to shut up." No where have I advocated that a father's rule is to
shut up! "These same people" include me since he was responding to a post
where Mel was responding to me directly.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

frazil
July 30th 03, 04:56 AM
Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
arthlink.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > But...
> >
> > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
older,
> > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more explanation
as
> > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
Moonshine,
> > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
attached
> > >> to his head.
> > >>
> > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > >> >really the father's money.
> > >>
> > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from the
> > >> "state".
> > >>
> > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity for
> > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they
have
> > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who
was
> > >> doing what financially.
> > >>
> > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't until
> > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money,
not
> > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I probably
> > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
> would
> > >> that have been?
> > >
> > >
> > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a parent
> is
> > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
> child
> > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> playing
> > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
leave
> > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > >
> > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father.
In
> > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and our
> son)
> > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
Right?
> > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily intact,
> that
> > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > >
> > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of any
> issue
> > >you have with your ex.
> >
> > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it is
no
> > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
> parent's
> > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too well
> when
> > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about them.
> I'd
> > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> decide
> > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier
and
> more
> > profitable.
>
> I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One would
> think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to be
> an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare and
> economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
to
> do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include their
> mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>
> One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as their
> teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
is
> going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
role
> model.

I agree, there is nothing wrong with teaching the children. However, as any
good teacher knows, the child's ability to understand what you are teaching
them is limited to their ability to comprehend what you tell them. A child
with no concept of where money comes from can't comprehend why there may not
be enough to afford what they want. Also realize that a child that can't
comprehend what you are telling them, will still incorporate what you say to
the best of their ability. And since their ability to make sense of the
world is limited, they frequently get it wrong (i.e. they will make sense of
the world around them based on their limited knowledge of the world. It is
an instinctual, genetically hard-wired characteristic of humans)

For example, my six-year old is just beginning to figure out that the
hamburger she eats comes from a cow, as opposed to the grocery store. She
still hasn't quite grasped the fact that I go to work to earn money to pay
for the things she wants. I haven't yet been able to figure out where she
thinks money comes from. And I'm fairly certain, that she hasn't figured
out that the cow she sees at a farm is the same as the cow that became the
hamburger she eats.

Tell them the facts you want, but understand that if they don't have the
experience or ability to comprehend what you say, you tell them the facts at
your own peril.

frazil
July 30th 03, 05:12 AM
Tracy > wrote in message
news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > But...
> > >
> > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> older,
> > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
explanation
> as
> > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> Moonshine,
> > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> attached
> > > >> to his head.
> > > >>
> > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > >>
> > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
the
> > > >> "state".
> > > >>
> > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
for
> > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they
> have
> > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who
> was
> > > >> doing what financially.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
until
> > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money,
> not
> > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
probably
> > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
> > would
> > > >> that have been?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
parent
> > is
> > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
> > child
> > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > playing
> > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> leave
> > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > >
> > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father.
> In
> > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
our
> > son)
> > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> Right?
> > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
intact,
> > that
> > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > >
> > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
any
> > issue
> > > >you have with your ex.
> > >
> > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
is
> no
> > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
> > parent's
> > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
well
> > when
> > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
them.
> > I'd
> > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > decide
> > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier
> and
> > more
> > > profitable.
> >
> > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
would
> > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to
be
> > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
and
> > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
> to
> > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
their
> > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> >
> > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
their
> > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
> is
> > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> role
> > model.
>
>
> Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
to.
> The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other parent.
> It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...

Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often the
weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I can't
afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when I
father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is subtly
trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that they
don't want to spend money on what the child wants.


>
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
>

gini52
July 30th 03, 05:33 AM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tracy > wrote in message
> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > arthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > But...
> > > >
> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
Dad
> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however,
I
> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> > older,
> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
they're
> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> explanation
> > as
> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > Moonshine,
> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
can't
> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
The
> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > attached
> > > > >> to his head.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
> the
> > > > >> "state".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
> for
> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
they
> > have
> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
who
> > was
> > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> until
> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
money,
> > not
> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> probably
> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
good
> > > would
> > > > >> that have been?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> parent
> > > is
> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
the
> > > child
> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth,
or
> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > > playing
> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> > leave
> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
father.
> > In
> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
for
> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
> our
> > > son)
> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > Right?
> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> intact,
> > > that
> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > >
> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
> any
> > > issue
> > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > >
> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
> is
> > no
> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of
a
> > > parent's
> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
> well
> > > when
> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> them.
> > > I'd
> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > > decide
> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
easier
> > and
> > > more
> > > > profitable.
> > >
> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> would
> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
to
> be
> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
> and
> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
anything
> > to
> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> their
> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > >
> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> their
> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
what
> > is
> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
the
> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> > role
> > > model.
> >
> >
> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
> to.
> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
parent.
> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
>
> Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often
the
> weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
can't
> afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when I
> father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is subtly
> trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
they
> don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
==
That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not be
able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given to
the mother.
==
==
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Tracy
> > ~~~~~~~
> > http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> > "You can't solve problems with the same
> > type of thinking that created them."
> > Albert Einstein
> >
> > *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Tracy
July 30th 03, 06:45 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy, what about your older boys' father? Have you never said anything
> negative about the way he led his life or treated those boys? If not, you
are
> a better person - under your definition - than I am.

I'll comment on this come Friday. It is late right now, and I need to get
to bed. I have plans for tomorrow night - so I can't answer tomorrow. I
have a lot to say in this matter - speaking from experience. Think how hard
it has been for me to keep my mouth shut when it came to my ex... so there
is more to come. Some here think they have had it hard, think again.


> By the way, what would you do if your 8-year old came home from school
telling
> you that women in the colonies cooked, sewed, cleaned and had babies and
the
> school says that's all they should be doing today? Would you, as you
suggested
> in another post, just wait until they were grown and started treating
women
> poorly and THEN tell them they shouldn't be doing so? Or would you point
out
> the error of such teachings while they were still young and forming their
views
> of the world? As near as I can tell from your posts, when my daughter
sees mom
> desperately chasing after a guy who has thrown her down and choked her in
front
> of the kids, I should not say that mom - or any other woman - should never
be
> so desperate for somebody in their lives that they would settle for
something
> like that. As near as I can tell, you're suggesting that I should wait
until
> my girl is 18 and has been beaten a couple of times herself and THEN start
> teaching her that she deserves better.
>
> I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree on this one - I will NOT
just
> let my daughter grow up under the mistaken impression that mom's way is
> acceptable. Yes, I can teach her my way and say nothing about mom's way,
but
> all that's going to do is give her the idea that EITHER way is "OK"...

You can express your disapproval of a situation, life-style, etc... without
trashing a person. It takes work, but it can be done.

You don't punish *the* child, but the behavior. Think about that, and I'll
touch more on the subject come Friday.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Mel Gamble
July 30th 03, 01:01 PM
Exactly, Gini....

>"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Tracy > wrote in message
>> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > arthlink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > > But...
>> > > >
>> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
>> > > > ...
>> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
>Dad
>> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however,
>I
>> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
>> > older,
>> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
>they're
>> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
>> explanation
>> > as
>> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
>> > Moonshine,
>> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
>can't
>> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
>The
>> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
>> > attached
>> > > > >> to his head.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
>> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
>> > > > >> >really the father's money.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
>> the
>> > > > >> "state".
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
>> for
>> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
>they
>> > have
>> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
>who
>> > was
>> > > > >> doing what financially.
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
>> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
>> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
>> until
>> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
>money,
>> > not
>> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
>> probably
>> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
>good
>> > > would
>> > > > >> that have been?
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
>> parent
>> > > is
>> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
>the
>> > > child
>> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth,
>or
>> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
>> > > playing
>> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
>> > leave
>> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
>father.
>> > In
>> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
>for
>> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
>> our
>> > > son)
>> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
>> > Right?
>> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
>> intact,
>> > > that
>> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
>> > > > >
>> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
>> any
>> > > issue
>> > > > >you have with your ex.
>> > > >
>> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
>> is
>> > no
>> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of
>a
>> > > parent's
>> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
>> well
>> > > when
>> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
>> them.
>> > > I'd
>> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
>> > > decide
>> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
>easier
>> > and
>> > > more
>> > > > profitable.
>> > >
>> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
>> would
>> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
>to
>> be
>> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
>> and
>> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
>> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
>anything
>> > to
>> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
>> their
>> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>> > >
>> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
>> their
>> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
>what
>> > is
>> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
>the
>> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
>> > role
>> > > model.
>> >
>> >
>> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth responding
>> to.
>> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
>parent.
>> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
>>
>> Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often
>the
>> weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
>can't
>> afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when I
>> father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is subtly
>> trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
>they
>> don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
>==
>That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
>father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not be
>able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given to
>the mother.
>==
>==

and to try to explain it to the child in any other way is to lie to the child
and necessarily leaves the child with the impression that the father no longer
places the same importance on the child's needs as he did before.

Mel Gamble

Tiffany
July 30th 03, 02:28 PM
frazil > wrote in message
...
>
> Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> arthlink.net...
> >
> > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > But...
> > >
> > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that Dad
> > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however, I
> > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> older,
> > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where they're
> > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
explanation
> as
> > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> Moonshine,
> > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We can't
> > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life. The
> > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> attached
> > > >> to his head.
> > > >>
> > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > >>
> > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
the
> > > >> "state".
> > > >>
> > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
for
> > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER they
> have
> > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by who
> was
> > > >> doing what financially.
> > > >>
> > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
until
> > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any money,
> not
> > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
probably
> > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what good
> > would
> > > >> that have been?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
parent
> > is
> > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing the
> > child
> > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth, or
> > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > playing
> > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> leave
> > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > >
> > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's father.
> In
> > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging for
> > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
our
> > son)
> > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> Right?
> > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
intact,
> > that
> > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > >
> > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
any
> > issue
> > > >you have with your ex.
> > >
> > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
is
> no
> > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of a
> > parent's
> > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
well
> > when
> > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
them.
> > I'd
> > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > decide
> > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's easier
> and
> > more
> > > profitable.
> >
> > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
would
> > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is to
be
> > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
and
> > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has anything
> to
> > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
their
> > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> >
> > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
their
> > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand what
> is
> > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for the
> > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> role
> > model.
>
> I agree, there is nothing wrong with teaching the children. However, as
any
> good teacher knows, the child's ability to understand what you are
teaching
> them is limited to their ability to comprehend what you tell them. A
child
> with no concept of where money comes from can't comprehend why there may
not
> be enough to afford what they want. Also realize that a child that can't
> comprehend what you are telling them, will still incorporate what you say
to
> the best of their ability. And since their ability to make sense of the
> world is limited, they frequently get it wrong (i.e. they will make sense
of
> the world around them based on their limited knowledge of the world. It
is
> an instinctual, genetically hard-wired characteristic of humans)
>
> For example, my six-year old is just beginning to figure out that the
> hamburger she eats comes from a cow, as opposed to the grocery store. She
> still hasn't quite grasped the fact that I go to work to earn money to pay
> for the things she wants. I haven't yet been able to figure out where she
> thinks money comes from. And I'm fairly certain, that she hasn't figured
> out that the cow she sees at a farm is the same as the cow that became the

> hamburger she eats.
>
> Tell them the facts you want, but understand that if they don't have the
> experience or ability to comprehend what you say, you tell them the facts
at
> your own peril.
>
>

My daughter is 12 and she just says... .write a check! You know, that isn't
really money in her eyes, it is an endless money pit. God, I wish. It took
me some time to explain that on pay day, I put money in, but most of it is
to pay the bills. That is where the money comes from. I put it there FIRST.
lol.

Bob Whiteside
July 30th 03, 05:40 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> frazil > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
> > arthlink.net...
> > >
> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > But...
> > > >
> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
Dad
> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy, however,
I
> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until they're
> > older,
> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
they're
> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> explanation
> > as
> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > Moonshine,
> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
can't
> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
The
> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > attached
> > > > >> to his head.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money from
> the
> > > > >> "state".
> > > > >>
> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and oppurtunity
> for
> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
they
> > have
> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
who
> > was
> > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my early
> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> until
> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
money,
> > not
> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> probably
> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
good
> > > would
> > > > >> that have been?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> parent
> > > is
> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
the
> > > child
> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the truth,
or
> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It is
> > > playing
> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is to
> > leave
> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
father.
> > In
> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
for
> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself, and
> our
> > > son)
> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > Right?
> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> intact,
> > > that
> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > >
> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle of
> any
> > > issue
> > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > >
> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the child....it
> is
> > no
> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter of
a
> > > parent's
> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done too
> well
> > > when
> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> them.
> > > I'd
> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model and
> > > decide
> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
easier
> > and
> > > more
> > > > profitable.
> > >
> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> would
> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
to
> be
> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's welfare
> and
> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate increased
> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
anything
> > to
> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> their
> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > >
> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> their
> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
what
> > is
> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
the
> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher and
> > role
> > > model.
> >
> > I agree, there is nothing wrong with teaching the children. However, as
> any
> > good teacher knows, the child's ability to understand what you are
> teaching
> > them is limited to their ability to comprehend what you tell them. A
> child
> > with no concept of where money comes from can't comprehend why there may
> not
> > be enough to afford what they want. Also realize that a child that
can't
> > comprehend what you are telling them, will still incorporate what you
say
> to
> > the best of their ability. And since their ability to make sense of the
> > world is limited, they frequently get it wrong (i.e. they will make
sense
> of
> > the world around them based on their limited knowledge of the world. It
> is
> > an instinctual, genetically hard-wired characteristic of humans)
> >
> > For example, my six-year old is just beginning to figure out that the
> > hamburger she eats comes from a cow, as opposed to the grocery store.
She
> > still hasn't quite grasped the fact that I go to work to earn money to
pay
> > for the things she wants. I haven't yet been able to figure out where
she
> > thinks money comes from. And I'm fairly certain, that she hasn't
figured
> > out that the cow she sees at a farm is the same as the cow that became
the
>
> > hamburger she eats.
> >
> > Tell them the facts you want, but understand that if they don't have the
> > experience or ability to comprehend what you say, you tell them the
facts
> at
> > your own peril.
> >
> >
>
> My daughter is 12 and she just says... .write a check! You know, that
isn't
> really money in her eyes, it is an endless money pit. God, I wish. It took
> me some time to explain that on pay day, I put money in, but most of it is
> to pay the bills. That is where the money comes from. I put it there
FIRST.
> lol.

When my children were young I had a similar experience. If I would say I
couldn't afford to buy something they wanted their response was - just go to
the machine that gives you $100. They viewed an ATM as a place to go to get
money when I needed it.

Tiffany
July 30th 03, 07:18 PM
Virginia > wrote in message
...
> 12 and she still doesn't understand where the money comes from? Wow.
>
> Tiffany wrote:
>
> > My daughter is 12 and she just says... .write a check! You know, that
isn't
> > really money in her eyes, it is an endless money pit. God, I wish. It
took
> > me some time to explain that on pay day, I put money in, but most of it
is
> > to pay the bills. That is where the money comes from. I put it there
FIRST.
> > lol.
> >
> >
>

She knows where it comes from. Me. She just thinks I have an endless supply.

gini52
July 30th 03, 07:34 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Virginia > wrote in message
> ...
> > 12 and she still doesn't understand where the money comes from? Wow.
> >
> > Tiffany wrote:
> >
> > > My daughter is 12 and she just says... .write a check! You know, that
> isn't
> > > really money in her eyes, it is an endless money pit. God, I wish. It
> took
> > > me some time to explain that on pay day, I put money in, but most of
it
> is
> > > to pay the bills. That is where the money comes from. I put it there
> FIRST.
> > > lol.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> She knows where it comes from. Me. She just thinks I have an endless
supply.
==
Hehe...might as well get used to it--My grown kids still think that way ;-)
==
==
>
>

frazil
August 1st 03, 03:54 AM
gini52 > wrote in message
...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Tracy > wrote in message
> > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > arthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > But...
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
> Dad
> > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
however,
> I
> > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
they're
> > > older,
> > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> they're
> > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > explanation
> > > as
> > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > Moonshine,
> > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> can't
> > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
> The
> > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > > attached
> > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
from
> > the
> > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
oppurtunity
> > for
> > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> they
> > > have
> > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
> who
> > > was
> > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
early
> > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> > until
> > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> money,
> > > not
> > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > probably
> > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> good
> > > > would
> > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> > parent
> > > > is
> > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
truth,
> or
> > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
is
> > > > playing
> > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
to
> > > leave
> > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> father.
> > > In
> > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
> for
> > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
and
> > our
> > > > son)
> > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > > Right?
> > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > intact,
> > > > that
> > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
of
> > any
> > > > issue
> > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > >
> > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
child....it
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
of
> a
> > > > parent's
> > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
too
> > well
> > > > when
> > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> > them.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
and
> > > > decide
> > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> easier
> > > and
> > > > more
> > > > > profitable.
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> > would
> > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
> to
> > be
> > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
welfare
> > and
> > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
increased
> > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> anything
> > > to
> > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> > their
> > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > >
> > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> > their
> > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
> what
> > > is
> > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
> the
> > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
and
> > > role
> > > > model.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
responding
> > to.
> > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> parent.
> > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >
> > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often
> the
> > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> can't
> > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when
I
> > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
subtly
> > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
> they
> > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> ==
> That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
> father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not be
> able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given
to
> the mother.
> ==
> ==

I understand what you are saying, and can more than empathize with your
position. The difference, that makes it trashing of the other parent, is
the failure to take responsibility for the answer you give. The bottom line
is that I think any parent would spend the money to buy what they believe
the child needs. When CP says "can't afford it, ask dad" and NCP says "I
give Mom money for that, ask her". Each is saying that "There are more
important things that I must spend money on", and their subtle excuse is
either I don't get enough from the NCP, or I give too much to the CP." IOW
how you spend the money at your disposal is your choice, and it is wrong to
pass off the responsibility for that choice on the other parent.

frazil
August 1st 03, 03:57 AM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> Exactly, Gini....
>
> >"frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Tracy > wrote in message
> >> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> >> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> > arthlink.net...
> >> > >
> >> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > > But...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> >> > > >
...
> >> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
> >Dad
> >> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
however,
> >I
> >> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
they're
> >> > older,
> >> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> >they're
> >> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> >> explanation
> >> > as
> >> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> >> > Moonshine,
> >> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> >can't
> >> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
> >The
> >> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> >> > attached
> >> > > > >> to his head.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> >> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> >> > > > >> >really the father's money.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
from
> >> the
> >> > > > >> "state".
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
oppurtunity
> >> for
> >> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> >they
> >> > have
> >> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced
by
> >who
> >> > was
> >> > > > >> doing what financially.
> >> > > > >>
> >> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
early
> >> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> >> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
wasn't
> >> until
> >> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> >money,
> >> > not
> >> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> >> probably
> >> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> >good
> >> > > would
> >> > > > >> that have been?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> >> parent
> >> > > is
> >> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
causing
> >the
> >> > > child
> >> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
truth,
> >or
> >> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
is
> >> > > playing
> >> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
to
> >> > leave
> >> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> >father.
> >> > In
> >> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
> >for
> >> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
and
> >> our
> >> > > son)
> >> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
concept.
> >> > Right?
> >> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> >> intact,
> >> > > that
> >> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
of
> >> any
> >> > > issue
> >> > > > >you have with your ex.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
child....it
> >> is
> >> > no
> >> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
of
> >a
> >> > > parent's
> >> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
too
> >> well
> >> > > when
> >> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> >> them.
> >> > > I'd
> >> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
and
> >> > > decide
> >> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> >easier
> >> > and
> >> > > more
> >> > > > profitable.
> >> > >
> >> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> >> would
> >> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children
is
> >to
> >> be
> >> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
welfare
> >> and
> >> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
increased
> >> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> >anything
> >> > to
> >> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> >> their
> >> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> >> > >
> >> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> >> their
> >> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
> >what
> >> > is
> >> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
> >the
> >> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
and
> >> > role
> >> > > model.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
responding
> >> to.
> >> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> >parent.
> >> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >>
> >> Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
often
> >the
> >> weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> >can't
> >> afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
when I
> >> father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
subtly
> >> trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
> >they
> >> don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> >==
> >That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
> >father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not
be
> >able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given
to
> >the mother.
> >==
> >==
>
> and to try to explain it to the child in any other way is to lie to the
child
> and necessarily leaves the child with the impression that the father no
longer
> places the same importance on the child's needs as he did before.

And if the child is incapable of understanding what you say, what have you
accomplished?

frazil
August 1st 03, 04:18 AM
Tracy > wrote in message
news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Tracy > wrote in message
> > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > arthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > But...
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
> Dad
> > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
however,
> I
> > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
they're
> > > older,
> > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> they're
> > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > explanation
> > > as
> > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > Moonshine,
> > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> can't
> > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
> The
> > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > > attached
> > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
from
> > the
> > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
oppurtunity
> > for
> > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> they
> > > have
> > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
> who
> > > was
> > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
early
> > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> > until
> > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> money,
> > > not
> > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > probably
> > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> good
> > > > would
> > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> > parent
> > > > is
> > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
truth,
> or
> > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
is
> > > > playing
> > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
to
> > > leave
> > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> father.
> > > In
> > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
> for
> > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
and
> > our
> > > > son)
> > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > > Right?
> > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > intact,
> > > > that
> > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
of
> > any
> > > > issue
> > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > >
> > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
child....it
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
of
> a
> > > > parent's
> > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
too
> > well
> > > > when
> > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> > them.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
and
> > > > decide
> > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> easier
> > > and
> > > > more
> > > > > profitable.
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> > would
> > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
> to
> > be
> > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
welfare
> > and
> > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
increased
> > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> anything
> > > to
> > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> > their
> > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > >
> > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> > their
> > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
> what
> > > is
> > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
> the
> > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
and
> > > role
> > > > model.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
responding
> > to.
> > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> parent.
> > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >
> > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often
> the
> > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> can't
> > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when
I
> > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
subtly
> > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
> they
> > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
>
>
> There is no "but". Trashing the other parent is damaging to the child's
> well being. If a parent really cared about their child they wouldn't do
it.
> I don't care if it is the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, mother,
or
> father... it doesn't matter. No one should be trashing the other parent,
> period.

I agree. I only wanted to illustrate the subtle manner in which CPs and
NCPs, may unconsciously trash the other parent.

>
> Anyways - it doesn't matter. My statements to Bob still stands. His
> statement are far from the truth, as my comments were NOT anti-father.
Oh,
> I know - it is okay for Bob to claim crap about me, but when I speak up
> against someone else - I get trashed on. I see how it is.
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

frazil
August 1st 03, 04:22 AM
Tiffany > wrote in message
...
>
> Virginia > wrote in message
> ...
> > 12 and she still doesn't understand where the money comes from? Wow.
> >
> > Tiffany wrote:
> >
> > > My daughter is 12 and she just says... .write a check! You know, that
> isn't
> > > really money in her eyes, it is an endless money pit. God, I wish. It
> took
> > > me some time to explain that on pay day, I put money in, but most of
it
> is
> > > to pay the bills. That is where the money comes from. I put it there
> FIRST.
> > > lol.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> She knows where it comes from. Me. She just thinks I have an endless
supply.

And good luck explaining counterfitting!

>
>

gini52
August 1st 03, 04:32 AM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > arthlink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > But...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
...
> > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
that
> > Dad
> > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> however,
> > I
> > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> they're
> > > > older,
> > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> > they're
> > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > explanation
> > > > as
> > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> > can't
> > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
life.
> > The
> > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
price
> > > > attached
> > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> from
> > > the
> > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> oppurtunity
> > > for
> > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced
by
> > who
> > > > was
> > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> early
> > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
never
> > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
wasn't
> > > until
> > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> > money,
> > > > not
> > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > > probably
> > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> > good
> > > > > would
> > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing
a
> > > parent
> > > > > is
> > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
causing
> > the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> truth,
> > or
> > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
> is
> > > > > playing
> > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
> to
> > > > leave
> > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> > father.
> > > > In
> > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
begging
> > for
> > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
> and
> > > our
> > > > > son)
> > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
concept.
> > > > Right?
> > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > > intact,
> > > > > that
> > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
together.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
> of
> > > any
> > > > > issue
> > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> child....it
> > > is
> > > > no
> > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
> of
> > a
> > > > > parent's
> > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
> too
> > > well
> > > > > when
> > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
about
> > > them.
> > > > > I'd
> > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
> and
> > > > > decide
> > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> > easier
> > > > and
> > > > > more
> > > > > > profitable.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
One
> > > would
> > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children
is
> > to
> > > be
> > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> welfare
> > > and
> > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> increased
> > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> > anything
> > > > to
> > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
include
> > > their
> > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
as
> > > their
> > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
understand
> > what
> > > > is
> > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
for
> > the
> > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
> and
> > > > role
> > > > > model.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> responding
> > > to.
> > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > parent.
> > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > >
> > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
often
> > the
> > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> > can't
> > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
when
> I
> > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> subtly
> > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
that
> > they
> > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> > ==
> > That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
> > father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not
be
> > able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given
> to
> > the mother.
> > ==
> > ==
>
> I understand what you are saying, and can more than empathize with your
> position. The difference, that makes it trashing of the other parent, is
> the failure to take responsibility for the answer you give. The bottom
line
> is that I think any parent would spend the money to buy what they believe
> the child needs. When CP says "can't afford it, ask dad" and NCP says "I
> give Mom money for that, ask her". Each is saying that "There are more
> important things that I must spend money on", and their subtle excuse is
> either I don't get enough from the NCP, or I give too much to the CP."
IOW
> how you spend the money at your disposal is your choice, and it is wrong
to
> pass off the responsibility for that choice on the other parent.
==
Frazil, When a parent is forced to pay lifestyle child support,
how they spend their money is no longer their choice and there is nothing
subtle in it at all.
Indeed there *were* more important things we had to spend our money
on--food, rent/mortgage,
insurance, diapers, gasoline. This was no subtle excuse--it was reality. To
make this into a traumatizing
event for the child seems more than a little reaching. My stepkids certainly
aren't damaged for life over the
financial roles their parents came to play. They know their mother had the
money and they know she didn't
spend it on them. They also know we were broke. My stepson knows it somewhat
better since he's been living with us
for the past 4 years while we have still been paying his mother. This has
resulted in his realization that he has a responsibility
to work and carry his own financial weight while he has lived here and is
attending college. He doesn't contribute to
the household finances but he does pay for his own clothing, entertainment
and college expenses that are not included in tuition. He is also an honor
student. That is life.
===
===

Tracy
August 1st 03, 05:04 AM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tracy > wrote in message
> news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > >
> > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> responding
> > > to.
> > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > parent.
> > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > >
> > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
often
> > the
> > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> > can't
> > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
when
> I
> > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> subtly
> > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
that
> > they
> > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> >
> >
> > There is no "but". Trashing the other parent is damaging to the child's
> > well being. If a parent really cared about their child they wouldn't do
> it.
> > I don't care if it is the custodial parent, non-custodial parent,
mother,
> or
> > father... it doesn't matter. No one should be trashing the other
parent,
> > period.
>
> I agree. I only wanted to illustrate the subtle manner in which CPs and
> NCPs, may unconsciously trash the other parent.

Ok - I didn't "get" what you were trying to convey. My apologies if I over
reacted to you. It is a sore subject as I had once got into a big
discussion with my bf over this very subject. I flat out told him I feel
like taking his daughter for six months while mom and dad gets their acts
together. Both of them have put their daughter in the middle of their
issues and it tears me apart. I believe I got my point across to him. At
least he can see the damage it is causing his daughter.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 1st 03, 06:38 AM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> Tracy, what about your older boys' father?

ok - you asked... now for the answer. Warning, this may be long as I have a
lot to say on this subject in connection with my ex-husband - and my
language may be offensive to some.

First off I would like to convey my anger towards the man. December 9th of
this year will mark 18 years since I've left him. 18 years is a long time.
18 years is almost as long as my boyfriend was married. 18 years of dealing
with the mess that was left behind. It hasn't been easy during those 18
years. At times it was done right hard, and other times it felt easy.
Being in this group has helped me cope with the situation - believe it or
not. Do I forgive him? No. Do I feel sorry for him, etc? Heck no. Why
don't I go after him with everything I possibly could? Because I don't want
to deal with him - he's scum. I know what my life would be like if he was
around - pure hell. I don't own a gun, because I would have put a bullet
between the man's eyes by now. I still think of putting him in a very deep
hole, feed him a mixture of food and poison so I can watch him slowly die.
Angry? yes I am. I will never forgive him for the pain he has put my boys
through - never will I. It isn't about me. It isn't about the marriage.
It is what he did to those boys.

My oldest spent many years living a fantasy concerning his father. Told
people how is father would take him fishing and camping, plus many other fun
things. It was hard on him when reality set in. A total break down on
one's character.... try to imagine yourself as a young child telling
yourself lies as a survival technique.

My middle son claiming his father was green with purple hair - or basically
anything other than his father. He rejected the idea that that man was his
father. Instead someone else was... anyone... even an "alien" from another
planet. Imagine yourself so full of discontent towards your own father you
didn't want to believe the fact that he was your father.

Imagine yourself so full of hate and anger you wanted to just scream... if
not see for yourself that the monster in your child's life was dead. The
one who choked you... the one who beat you... the one who threatened you..
the one who left bruises on your kids... the one who hurt your kids... the
one who threatened your kids' lives. I'm sure there are many in this group
who can relate to having such anger and discontent towards their ex. So
maybe for the few it isn't that hard.

now onto the rest...

> Have you never said anything
> negative about the way he led his life or treated those boys?

Not to my boys. Instead I bite my tongue.

When my oldest son started into his fantasies and everyone knew they weren't
true - we had to sit there and say nothing negative. It was "okay" to say
something along the lines of "[son's name], you never went camping with your
father." But it wasn't okay to say something along the lines of "your
father only beat the **** out of you!" See the difference? Do you have any
idea after many years of listening to the fantasies I just wanted to explode
and tell my son his father was a piece of **** who chased little 14 year old
girls???? He could care less about the kids - just as long as he received
his welfare check! Camping? No - we lived in a damn station wagon. Parked
it in the streets in Santa Maria, California - all because he didn't allow
me to work and he refused to work. We were homeless. We didn't go camping!

Anger? Wanting to just tell my son the truth? You bet... but I didn't. I
have tape recordings of two conversations taking place between my ex and my
oldest son. My oldest son being proud of himself proclaiming he can spell,
etc. My ex calling my son a liar, then asking him how his mother is having
sex with! And yes Mel - he used the word 'sex'. Like a 5/6 year old is
going to understand that!


> If not, you are
> a better person - under your definition - than I am.

No Mel... I just haven't really spoken up on how I *really* feel about my
ex. No one really understands how easy it would be for me to murder that
man. I would be on cloud nine to watch him die a slow death. Just to know
he'll never have the ability to **** up anyone else's life. I'd tell him it
was for his oldest son - who he lost his parental rights to. It was for his
second son who fell into deep depression, and then some, due to his father's
lies and games against his mother. It was for his oldest daughter who ended
up like her older brother (depressed and then some) due to the games. It
was for my oldest son who ended up with scars due to his father's fricken
bull-****.

No - I'm not the better person. I'm not perfect.

Have I talked to my sons about their father? Yes... but I didn't trash him.
I wanted to, but I didn't. Instead Mel - in a big way I trashed myself in
terms of becoming a teen-parent. I used myself as an example as to why one
shouldn't do what I've done. I'm not the better person - so please don't
ever view me as that.


> By the way, what would you do if your 8-year old came home from school
telling
> you that women in the colonies cooked, sewed, cleaned and had babies and
the
> school says that's all they should be doing today? Would you, as you
suggested
> in another post, just wait until they were grown and started treating
women
> poorly and THEN tell them they shouldn't be doing so? Or would you point
out
> the error of such teachings while they were still young and forming their
views
> of the world?

If one of my sons came home telling me women belong in the home barefoot and
pregnant, I would sit there and tell them I view things differently and
explain why. Seriously, a co-worker asked me last week how I have brought
up two sons who never got involved in drugs, etc... and communicated so well
with me. You know what I told him? Almost nightly I would bring to the
dinner table a subject based on current events. There had to be some sort
of morals involved. Then we would openly talk about the subject. I never
once told my boys how to feel, or what is right or wrong. Instead I allowed
them to grow up developing their own belief in right vs. wrong. As long as
I respected their views, they respected mine. In my house we can agree to
disagree - a dictatorship does not exist.

> As near as I can tell from your posts, when my daughter sees mom
> desperately chasing after a guy who has thrown her down and choked her in
front
> of the kids, I should not say that mom - or any other woman - should never
be
> so desperate for somebody in their lives that they would settle for
something
> like that. As near as I can tell, you're suggesting that I should wait
until
> my girl is 18 and has been beaten a couple of times herself and THEN start
> teaching her that she deserves better.

At no time did I ever sit here and say anything like you are suggesting
above. You are capable of teaching your child self-worth and self-respect
without trashing her mother.


> I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree on this one - I will NOT
just
> let my daughter grow up under the mistaken impression that mom's way is
> acceptable. Yes, I can teach her my way and say nothing about mom's way,
but
> all that's going to do is give her the idea that EITHER way is "OK"...

I think you read what I wrote wrong.

My ex has never paid child support. Should I have blamed my ex's lack of
paying any type of child support for the reason why I couldn't afford
something? Should I tell my boys it is his fault? If I trashed my ex to my
boys, what would my actions be called? Wouldn't my actions be considered
PAS? You've read me enough in this group - have I ever tolerate a CP who
trashes the NCP to the kids? Why should I tolerate a NCP who trashes the CP
to the kids? And I'm talking trashing... "your mother is a ****ing ****!"
"your father is a worthless piece of ****!" How about putting a child in
the middle of any issue??? have I ever tolerated that? no, I haven't.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Mel Gamble
August 1st 03, 12:05 PM
>Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
>> Exactly, Gini....
>>
>> >"frazil" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >>
>> >> Tracy > wrote in message
>> >> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
>> >> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> >> > arthlink.net...
>> >> > >
>> >> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
>> >> > > ...
>> >> > > > But...
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
>> >> > > >
...
>> >> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
>> >Dad
>> >> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
>however,
>> >I
>> >> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
>they're
>> >> > older,
>> >> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
>> >they're
>> >> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
>> >> explanation
>> >> > as
>> >> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
>> >> > Moonshine,
>> >> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
>> >can't
>> >> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
>> >The
>> >> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
>> >> > attached
>> >> > > > >> to his head.
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
>> >> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
>> >> > > > >> >really the father's money.
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
>from
>> >> the
>> >> > > > >> "state".
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
>oppurtunity
>> >> for
>> >> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
>> >they
>> >> > have
>> >> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced
>by
>> >who
>> >> > was
>> >> > > > >> doing what financially.
>> >> > > > >>
>> >> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
>early
>> >> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
>> >> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
>wasn't
>> >> until
>> >> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
>> >money,
>> >> > not
>> >> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
>> >> probably
>> >> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
>> >good
>> >> > > would
>> >> > > > >> that have been?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
>> >> parent
>> >> > > is
>> >> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
>causing
>> >the
>> >> > > child
>> >> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
>truth,
>> >or
>> >> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
>is
>> >> > > playing
>> >> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
>to
>> >> > leave
>> >> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
>> >father.
>> >> > In
>> >> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
>> >for
>> >> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
>and
>> >> our
>> >> > > son)
>> >> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
>concept.
>> >> > Right?
>> >> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
>> >> intact,
>> >> > > that
>> >> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
>of
>> >> any
>> >> > > issue
>> >> > > > >you have with your ex.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
>child....it
>> >> is
>> >> > no
>> >> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
>of
>> >a
>> >> > > parent's
>> >> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
>too
>> >> well
>> >> > > when
>> >> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
>> >> them.
>> >> > > I'd
>> >> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
>and
>> >> > > decide
>> >> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
>> >easier
>> >> > and
>> >> > > more
>> >> > > > profitable.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
>> >> would
>> >> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children
>is
>> >to
>> >> be
>> >> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
>welfare
>> >> and
>> >> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
>increased
>> >> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
>> >anything
>> >> > to
>> >> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
>> >> their
>> >> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
>> >> their
>> >> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
>> >what
>> >> > is
>> >> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
>> >the
>> >> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
>and
>> >> > role
>> >> > > model.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
>responding
>> >> to.
>> >> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
>> >parent.
>> >> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
>> >>
>> >> Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
>often
>> >the
>> >> weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
>> >can't
>> >> afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
>when I
>> >> father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
>subtly
>> >> trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
>> >they
>> >> don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
>> >==
>> >That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying. The
>> >father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might not
>be
>> >able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already given
>to
>> >the mother.
>> >==
>> >==
>>
>> and to try to explain it to the child in any other way is to lie to the
>child
>> and necessarily leaves the child with the impression that the father no
>longer
>> places the same importance on the child's needs as he did before.
>
>And if the child is incapable of understanding what you say, what have you
>accomplished?

I don't discuss these matters with babies. My daughter is a smart 8 and
understands what is happening around her...

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 1st 03, 12:26 PM
Well, Tracy, maybe the problem is in our definition of "trashing". I don't
call mommy names or make untrue statements about her. But when she does
something like buying a VCR from Walmart and taking it home and letting a
4-year-old break it, then buys another just like it and uses that receipt to
take the first one back and get her money back "because it was broke when I got
it home"... This is NOT what most people consider to be honest behaviour. In
fact, some people would consider it "stealing". That's as far as it goes. My
daughter can figure for herself how mommy fits into that picture. We DON'T
steal. When somebody hands me an extra $ in the change and I notice it, I make
a point of returning it - AND I make a point of letting my daughter know that
it was returned. I may push the issue harder than other parents, but I get
parts of 3 days out of 7 to counteract the training she's getting the rest of
the week, so I have to work harder at it when I have the chance.

You might have found it easier to point out the differences between yourself
and your ex if he had remained in the boys' lives and they started shoplifting
and tried to shrug it off on the basis that "dad does it all the time, he says
everybody does."

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
>> Tracy, what about your older boys' father?
>
>ok - you asked... now for the answer. Warning, this may be long as I have a
>lot to say on this subject in connection with my ex-husband - and my
>language may be offensive to some.
>
>First off I would like to convey my anger towards the man. December 9th of
>this year will mark 18 years since I've left him. 18 years is a long time.
>18 years is almost as long as my boyfriend was married. 18 years of dealing
>with the mess that was left behind. It hasn't been easy during those 18
>years. At times it was done right hard, and other times it felt easy.
>Being in this group has helped me cope with the situation - believe it or
>not. Do I forgive him? No. Do I feel sorry for him, etc? Heck no. Why
>don't I go after him with everything I possibly could? Because I don't want
>to deal with him - he's scum. I know what my life would be like if he was
>around - pure hell. I don't own a gun, because I would have put a bullet
>between the man's eyes by now. I still think of putting him in a very deep
>hole, feed him a mixture of food and poison so I can watch him slowly die.
>Angry? yes I am. I will never forgive him for the pain he has put my boys
>through - never will I. It isn't about me. It isn't about the marriage.
>It is what he did to those boys.
>
>My oldest spent many years living a fantasy concerning his father. Told
>people how is father would take him fishing and camping, plus many other fun
>things. It was hard on him when reality set in. A total break down on
>one's character.... try to imagine yourself as a young child telling
>yourself lies as a survival technique.
>
>My middle son claiming his father was green with purple hair - or basically
>anything other than his father. He rejected the idea that that man was his
>father. Instead someone else was... anyone... even an "alien" from another
>planet. Imagine yourself so full of discontent towards your own father you
>didn't want to believe the fact that he was your father.
>
>Imagine yourself so full of hate and anger you wanted to just scream... if
>not see for yourself that the monster in your child's life was dead. The
>one who choked you... the one who beat you... the one who threatened you..
>the one who left bruises on your kids... the one who hurt your kids... the
>one who threatened your kids' lives. I'm sure there are many in this group
>who can relate to having such anger and discontent towards their ex. So
>maybe for the few it isn't that hard.
>
>now onto the rest...
>
>> Have you never said anything
>> negative about the way he led his life or treated those boys?
>
>Not to my boys. Instead I bite my tongue.
>
>When my oldest son started into his fantasies and everyone knew they weren't
>true - we had to sit there and say nothing negative. It was "okay" to say
>something along the lines of "[son's name], you never went camping with your
>father." But it wasn't okay to say something along the lines of "your
>father only beat the **** out of you!" See the difference? Do you have any
>idea after many years of listening to the fantasies I just wanted to explode
>and tell my son his father was a piece of **** who chased little 14 year old
>girls???? He could care less about the kids - just as long as he received
>his welfare check! Camping? No - we lived in a damn station wagon. Parked
>it in the streets in Santa Maria, California - all because he didn't allow
>me to work and he refused to work. We were homeless. We didn't go camping!
>
>Anger? Wanting to just tell my son the truth? You bet... but I didn't. I
>have tape recordings of two conversations taking place between my ex and my
>oldest son. My oldest son being proud of himself proclaiming he can spell,
>etc. My ex calling my son a liar, then asking him how his mother is having
>sex with! And yes Mel - he used the word 'sex'. Like a 5/6 year old is
>going to understand that!
>
>
>> If not, you are
>> a better person - under your definition - than I am.
>
>No Mel... I just haven't really spoken up on how I *really* feel about my
>ex. No one really understands how easy it would be for me to murder that
>man. I would be on cloud nine to watch him die a slow death. Just to know
>he'll never have the ability to **** up anyone else's life. I'd tell him it
>was for his oldest son - who he lost his parental rights to. It was for his
>second son who fell into deep depression, and then some, due to his father's
>lies and games against his mother. It was for his oldest daughter who ended
>up like her older brother (depressed and then some) due to the games. It
>was for my oldest son who ended up with scars due to his father's fricken
>bull-****.
>
>No - I'm not the better person. I'm not perfect.
>
>Have I talked to my sons about their father? Yes... but I didn't trash him.
>I wanted to, but I didn't. Instead Mel - in a big way I trashed myself in
>terms of becoming a teen-parent. I used myself as an example as to why one
>shouldn't do what I've done. I'm not the better person - so please don't
>ever view me as that.
>
>
>> By the way, what would you do if your 8-year old came home from school
>telling
>> you that women in the colonies cooked, sewed, cleaned and had babies and
>the
>> school says that's all they should be doing today? Would you, as you
>suggested
>> in another post, just wait until they were grown and started treating
>women
>> poorly and THEN tell them they shouldn't be doing so? Or would you point
>out
>> the error of such teachings while they were still young and forming their
>views
>> of the world?
>
>If one of my sons came home telling me women belong in the home barefoot and
>pregnant, I would sit there and tell them I view things differently and
>explain why. Seriously, a co-worker asked me last week how I have brought
>up two sons who never got involved in drugs, etc... and communicated so well
>with me. You know what I told him? Almost nightly I would bring to the
>dinner table a subject based on current events. There had to be some sort
>of morals involved. Then we would openly talk about the subject. I never
>once told my boys how to feel, or what is right or wrong. Instead I allowed
>them to grow up developing their own belief in right vs. wrong. As long as
>I respected their views, they respected mine. In my house we can agree to
>disagree - a dictatorship does not exist.
>
>> As near as I can tell from your posts, when my daughter sees mom
>> desperately chasing after a guy who has thrown her down and choked her in
>front
>> of the kids, I should not say that mom - or any other woman - should never
>be
>> so desperate for somebody in their lives that they would settle for
>something
>> like that. As near as I can tell, you're suggesting that I should wait
>until
>> my girl is 18 and has been beaten a couple of times herself and THEN start
>> teaching her that she deserves better.
>
>At no time did I ever sit here and say anything like you are suggesting
>above. You are capable of teaching your child self-worth and self-respect
>without trashing her mother.
>
>
>> I'm sorry, but we're going to have to disagree on this one - I will NOT
>just
>> let my daughter grow up under the mistaken impression that mom's way is
>> acceptable. Yes, I can teach her my way and say nothing about mom's way,
>but
>> all that's going to do is give her the idea that EITHER way is "OK"...
>
>I think you read what I wrote wrong.
>
>My ex has never paid child support. Should I have blamed my ex's lack of
>paying any type of child support for the reason why I couldn't afford
>something? Should I tell my boys it is his fault? If I trashed my ex to my
>boys, what would my actions be called? Wouldn't my actions be considered
>PAS? You've read me enough in this group - have I ever tolerate a CP who
>trashes the NCP to the kids? Why should I tolerate a NCP who trashes the CP
>to the kids? And I'm talking trashing... "your mother is a ****ing ****!"
>"your father is a worthless piece of ****!" How about putting a child in
>the middle of any issue??? have I ever tolerated that? no, I haven't.
>
>
>Tracy

~August
August 1st 03, 08:48 PM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Tracy > wrote in message
> > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > arthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > But...
> > > > >
> > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in that
> Dad
> > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
however,
> I
> > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
they're
> > > older,
> > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> they're
> > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > explanation
> > > as
> > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > Moonshine,
> > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told 'We
> can't
> > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of life.
> The
> > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a price
> > > attached
> > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
from
> > the
> > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
oppurtunity
> > for
> > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then, AFTER
> they
> > > have
> > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't influenced by
> who
> > > was
> > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
early
> > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it never
> > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It wasn't
> > until
> > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad any
> money,
> > > not
> > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid, I
> > probably
> > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and what
> good
> > > > would
> > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only thing a
> > parent
> > > > is
> > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is causing
> the
> > > > child
> > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
truth,
> or
> > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks. It
is
> > > > playing
> > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy is
to
> > > leave
> > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> father.
> > > In
> > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts begging
> for
> > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad, myself,
and
> > our
> > > > son)
> > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a concept.
> > > Right?
> > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families, primarily
> > intact,
> > > > that
> > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it together.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the middle
of
> > any
> > > > issue
> > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > >
> > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
child....it
> > is
> > > no
> > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the matter
of
> a
> > > > parent's
> > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being done
too
> > well
> > > > when
> > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent about
> > them.
> > > > I'd
> > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role model
and
> > > > decide
> > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> easier
> > > and
> > > > more
> > > > > profitable.
> > > >
> > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread. One
> > would
> > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their children is
> to
> > be
> > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
welfare
> > and
> > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
increased
> > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> anything
> > > to
> > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that include
> > their
> > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > >
> > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is as
> > their
> > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child understand
> what
> > > is
> > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used for
> the
> > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as teacher
and
> > > role
> > > > model.
> > >
> > >
> > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
responding
> > to.
> > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> parent.
> > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >
> > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is often
> the
> > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says, "I
> can't
> > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And when
I
> > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
subtly
> > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is that
> they
> > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
>
>
> There is no "but". Trashing the other parent is damaging to the child's
> well being. If a parent really cared about their child they wouldn't do
it.
> I don't care if it is the custodial parent, non-custodial parent, mother,
or
> father... it doesn't matter. No one should be trashing the other parent,
> period.


Tracey - please clarify your definition of "trashing". Because on the one
hand, i want to agree with what you say.... "Dont put the kids in the
middle. Dont "Trash" the parent to the kid" But on the other hand, it
seems as if your definition of "trashing" is to say anything negative about
the other parent at all. Dont you automatically trash the other parent
every time you tell your child you disagree with what the other parent is
doing? Even if you dont come right out and say it?


>
> Anyways - it doesn't matter. My statements to Bob still stands. His
> statement are far from the truth, as my comments were NOT anti-father.
Oh,
> I know - it is okay for Bob to claim crap about me, but when I speak up
> against someone else - I get trashed on. I see how it is.
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>

frazil
August 1st 03, 10:12 PM
Mel Gamble > wrote in message
...
> >Mel Gamble > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Exactly, Gini....
> >>
> >> >"frazil" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>
> >> >> Tracy > wrote in message
> >> >> news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> >> >> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> >> > arthlink.net...
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > ...
> >> >> > > > But...
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> >> >> > > >
> ...
> >> >> > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
that
> >> >Dad
> >> >> > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> >however,
> >> >I
> >> >> > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> >they're
> >> >> > older,
> >> >> > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> >> >they're
> >> >> > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> >> >> explanation
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> >> >> > Moonshine,
> >> >> > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told
'We
> >> >can't
> >> >> > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
life.
> >> >The
> >> >> > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
price
> >> >> > attached
> >> >> > > > >> to his head.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> >> >> > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> >> >> > > > >> >really the father's money.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> >from
> >> >> the
> >> >> > > > >> "state".
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> >oppurtunity
> >> >> for
> >> >> > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then,
AFTER
> >> >they
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't
influenced
> >by
> >> >who
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > > > >> doing what financially.
> >> >> > > > >>
> >> >> > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> >early
> >> >> > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
never
> >> >> > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
> >wasn't
> >> >> until
> >> >> > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad
any
> >> >money,
> >> >> > not
> >> >> > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid,
I
> >> >> probably
> >> >> > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and
what
> >> >good
> >> >> > > would
> >> >> > > > >> that have been?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only
thing a
> >> >> parent
> >> >> > > is
> >> >> > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
> >causing
> >> >the
> >> >> > > child
> >> >> > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> >truth,
> >> >or
> >> >> > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks.
It
> >is
> >> >> > > playing
> >> >> > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy
is
> >to
> >> >> > leave
> >> >> > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> >> >father.
> >> >> > In
> >> >> > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
begging
> >> >for
> >> >> > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad,
myself,
> >and
> >> >> our
> >> >> > > son)
> >> >> > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
> >concept.
> >> >> > Right?
> >> >> > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families,
primarily
> >> >> intact,
> >> >> > > that
> >> >> > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
together.
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the
middle
> >of
> >> >> any
> >> >> > > issue
> >> >> > > > >you have with your ex.
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> >child....it
> >> >> is
> >> >> > no
> >> >> > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the
matter
> >of
> >> >a
> >> >> > > parent's
> >> >> > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being
done
> >too
> >> >> well
> >> >> > > when
> >> >> > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
about
> >> >> them.
> >> >> > > I'd
> >> >> > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role
model
> >and
> >> >> > > decide
> >> >> > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> >> >easier
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > > more
> >> >> > > > profitable.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
One
> >> >> would
> >> >> > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their
children
> >is
> >> >to
> >> >> be
> >> >> > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> >welfare
> >> >> and
> >> >> > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> >increased
> >> >> > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> >> >anything
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
include
> >> >> their
> >> >> > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
as
> >> >> their
> >> >> > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
understand
> >> >what
> >> >> > is
> >> >> > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
for
> >> >the
> >> >> > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as
teacher
> >and
> >> >> > role
> >> >> > > model.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> >responding
> >> >> to.
> >> >> > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> >> >parent.
> >> >> > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
> >often
> >> >the
> >> >> weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says,
"I
> >> >can't
> >> >> afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
> >when I
> >> >> father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> >subtly
> >> >> trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
that
> >> >they
> >> >> don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> >> >==
> >> >That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying.
The
> >> >father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might
not
> >be
> >> >able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already
given
> >to
> >> >the mother.
> >> >==
> >> >==
> >>
> >> and to try to explain it to the child in any other way is to lie to the
> >child
> >> and necessarily leaves the child with the impression that the father no
> >longer
> >> places the same importance on the child's needs as he did before.
> >
> >And if the child is incapable of understanding what you say, what have
you
> >accomplished?
>
> I don't discuss these matters with babies. My daughter is a smart 8 and
> understands what is happening around her...

As any smart 8-year-old can. Or are you asserting that your understanding
is comparible to her's?

>
> Mel Gamble

frazil
August 1st 03, 10:32 PM
gini52 > wrote in message
...
>
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > gini52 > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > arthlink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > But...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> ...
> > > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
> that
> > > Dad
> > > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> > however,
> > > I
> > > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> > they're
> > > > > older,
> > > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age where
> > > they're
> > > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > > explanation
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree with
> > > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told
'We
> > > can't
> > > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
> life.
> > > The
> > > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
> price
> > > > > attached
> > > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets money
> > from
> > > > the
> > > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> > oppurtunity
> > > > for
> > > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then,
AFTER
> > > they
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't
influenced
> by
> > > who
> > > > > was
> > > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout my
> > early
> > > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
> never
> > > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
> wasn't
> > > > until
> > > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad
any
> > > money,
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a kid,
I
> > > > probably
> > > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and
what
> > > good
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only
thing
> a
> > > > parent
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
> causing
> > > the
> > > > > > child
> > > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> > truth,
> > > or
> > > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks.
It
> > is
> > > > > > playing
> > > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best policy
is
> > to
> > > > > leave
> > > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest son's
> > > father.
> > > > > In
> > > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
> begging
> > > for
> > > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad,
myself,
> > and
> > > > our
> > > > > > son)
> > > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
> concept.
> > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families,
primarily
> > > > intact,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
> together.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the
middle
> > of
> > > > any
> > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> > child....it
> > > > is
> > > > > no
> > > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the
matter
> > of
> > > a
> > > > > > parent's
> > > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being
done
> > too
> > > > well
> > > > > > when
> > > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
> about
> > > > them.
> > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role
model
> > and
> > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase it's
> > > easier
> > > > > and
> > > > > > more
> > > > > > > profitable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this thread.
> One
> > > > would
> > > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their
children
> is
> > > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> > welfare
> > > > and
> > > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> > increased
> > > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement has
> > > anything
> > > > > to
> > > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
> include
> > > > their
> > > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life is
> as
> > > > their
> > > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
> understand
> > > what
> > > > > is
> > > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being used
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as
teacher
> > and
> > > > > role
> > > > > > model.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> > responding
> > > > to.
> > > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > > parent.
> > > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > > >
> > > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
> often
> > > the
> > > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says,
"I
> > > can't
> > > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
> when
> > I
> > > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> > subtly
> > > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
> that
> > > they
> > > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> > > ==
> > > That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying.
The
> > > father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might
not
> be
> > > able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already
given
> > to
> > > the mother.
> > > ==
> > > ==
> >
> > I understand what you are saying, and can more than empathize with your
> > position. The difference, that makes it trashing of the other parent,
is
> > the failure to take responsibility for the answer you give. The bottom
> line
> > is that I think any parent would spend the money to buy what they
believe
> > the child needs. When CP says "can't afford it, ask dad" and NCP says
"I
> > give Mom money for that, ask her". Each is saying that "There are more
> > important things that I must spend money on", and their subtle excuse is
> > either I don't get enough from the NCP, or I give too much to the CP."
> IOW
> > how you spend the money at your disposal is your choice, and it is wrong
> to
> > pass off the responsibility for that choice on the other parent.
> ==
> Frazil, When a parent is forced to pay lifestyle child support,
> how they spend their money is no longer their choice and there is nothing
> subtle in it at all.
> Indeed there *were* more important things we had to spend our money
> on--food, rent/mortgage,
> insurance, diapers, gasoline. This was no subtle excuse--it was reality.

Agreed.

To
> make this into a traumatizing
> event for the child seems more than a little reaching. My stepkids
certainly
> aren't damaged for life over the
> financial roles their parents came to play. They know their mother had the
> money and they know she didn't
> spend it on them.

If they knew, why are you compelled to state the obvious?


They also know we were broke. My stepson knows it somewhat
> better since he's been living with us
> for the past 4 years while we have still been paying his mother. This has
> resulted in his realization that he has a responsibility
> to work and carry his own financial weight while he has lived here and is
> attending college. He doesn't contribute to
> the household finances but he does pay for his own clothing, entertainment
> and college expenses that are not included in tuition. He is also an
honor
> student. That is life.

My point is that you have control how the money at your disposal is spent.
And how that money is spent is your choice. If you feel it is more
important to pay the mortgage than buy soccer shoes, so be it. But that
choice is yours. Do not blame the other parent for your belief that it is
more importent to pay your mortgage, than pay for soccer shoes.


> ===
> ===

frazil
August 1st 03, 10:38 PM
Tracy > wrote in message
news:uFlWa.37042$YN5.33349@sccrnsc01...
> "frazil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Tracy > wrote in message
> > news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
> > >
> > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > >
> > > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> > responding
> > > > to.
> > > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the other
> > > parent.
> > > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a clue...
> > > >
> > > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
> often
> > > the
> > > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother says,
"I
> > > can't
> > > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father. And
> when
> > I
> > > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> > subtly
> > > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
> that
> > > they
> > > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is no "but". Trashing the other parent is damaging to the
child's
> > > well being. If a parent really cared about their child they wouldn't
do
> > it.
> > > I don't care if it is the custodial parent, non-custodial parent,
> mother,
> > or
> > > father... it doesn't matter. No one should be trashing the other
> parent,
> > > period.
> >
> > I agree. I only wanted to illustrate the subtle manner in which CPs and
> > NCPs, may unconsciously trash the other parent.
>
> Ok - I didn't "get" what you were trying to convey. My apologies if I
over
> reacted to you. It is a sore subject as I had once got into a big
> discussion with my bf over this very subject. I flat out told him I feel
> like taking his daughter for six months while mom and dad gets their acts
> together. Both of them have put their daughter in the middle of their
> issues and it tears me apart. I believe I got my point across to him. At
> least he can see the damage it is causing his daughter.

No problem, Tracy. More often than not, I agree with you.


>
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
>

teachrmama
August 1st 03, 10:39 PM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > gini52 > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
arthlink.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > But...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > ...
> > > > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
> > that
> > > > Dad
> > > > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> > > however,
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> > > they're
> > > > > > older,
> > > > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age
where
> > > > they're
> > > > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree
with
> > > > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told
> 'We
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
> > life.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
> > price
> > > > > > attached
> > > > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets
money
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> > > oppurtunity
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then,
> AFTER
> > > > they
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't
> influenced
> > by
> > > > who
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout
my
> > > early
> > > > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
> > never
> > > > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
> > wasn't
> > > > > until
> > > > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad
> any
> > > > money,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a
kid,
> I
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and
> what
> > > > good
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only
> thing
> > a
> > > > > parent
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
> > causing
> > > > the
> > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> > > truth,
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks.
> It
> > > is
> > > > > > > playing
> > > > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best
policy
> is
> > > to
> > > > > > leave
> > > > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest
son's
> > > > father.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
> > begging
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad,
> myself,
> > > and
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > son)
> > > > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
> > concept.
> > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families,
> primarily
> > > > > intact,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
> > together.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the
> middle
> > > of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> > > child....it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the
> matter
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > > > parent's
> > > > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being
> done
> > > too
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
> > about
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role
> model
> > > and
> > > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase
it's
> > > > easier
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > profitable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this
thread.
> > One
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their
> children
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> > > welfare
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> > > increased
> > > > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement
has
> > > > anything
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
> > include
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life
is
> > as
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
> > understand
> > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being
used
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as
> teacher
> > > and
> > > > > > role
> > > > > > > model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> > > responding
> > > > > to.
> > > > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the
other
> > > > parent.
> > > > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a
clue...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
> > often
> > > > the
> > > > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother
says,
> "I
> > > > can't
> > > > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father.
And
> > when
> > > I
> > > > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> > > subtly
> > > > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
> > that
> > > > they
> > > > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> > > > ==
> > > > That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying.
> The
> > > > father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might
> not
> > be
> > > > able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already
> given
> > > to
> > > > the mother.
> > > > ==
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying, and can more than empathize with
your
> > > position. The difference, that makes it trashing of the other parent,
> is
> > > the failure to take responsibility for the answer you give. The
bottom
> > line
> > > is that I think any parent would spend the money to buy what they
> believe
> > > the child needs. When CP says "can't afford it, ask dad" and NCP says
> "I
> > > give Mom money for that, ask her". Each is saying that "There are
more
> > > important things that I must spend money on", and their subtle excuse
is
> > > either I don't get enough from the NCP, or I give too much to the CP."
> > IOW
> > > how you spend the money at your disposal is your choice, and it is
wrong
> > to
> > > pass off the responsibility for that choice on the other parent.
> > ==
> > Frazil, When a parent is forced to pay lifestyle child support,
> > how they spend their money is no longer their choice and there is
nothing
> > subtle in it at all.
> > Indeed there *were* more important things we had to spend our money
> > on--food, rent/mortgage,
> > insurance, diapers, gasoline. This was no subtle excuse--it was reality.
>
> Agreed.
>
> To
> > make this into a traumatizing
> > event for the child seems more than a little reaching. My stepkids
> certainly
> > aren't damaged for life over the
> > financial roles their parents came to play. They know their mother had
the
> > money and they know she didn't
> > spend it on them.
>
> If they knew, why are you compelled to state the obvious?
>
>
> They also know we were broke. My stepson knows it somewhat
> > better since he's been living with us
> > for the past 4 years while we have still been paying his mother. This
has
> > resulted in his realization that he has a responsibility
> > to work and carry his own financial weight while he has lived here and
is
> > attending college. He doesn't contribute to
> > the household finances but he does pay for his own clothing,
entertainment
> > and college expenses that are not included in tuition. He is also an
> honor
> > student. That is life.
>
> My point is that you have control how the money at your disposal is spent.
> And how that money is spent is your choice. If you feel it is more
> important to pay the mortgage than buy soccer shoes, so be it. But that
> choice is yours. Do not blame the other parent for your belief that it is
> more importent to pay your mortgage, than pay for soccer shoes.

I don't think that the point is "blaming the other parent", fraz. I think
th point is helping the child understand the priorities for the money that
comes in. I told my daughter today "if I spend that much money on your
school clothes, Dear, you'll be wearing them under a bridge because I won't
be able to make the mortgage payment." Lightheartedly, of course. And she
understands, because she has been aware of income/outgo for quite a while
now. If an NCP shows the child the budget with income/outgo figures (can be
generalized--not necessarily specific) the child can see for himself why the
newest "must-have shoes" are not possible. If he questions the "child
support" figure in the budget, he can simply be told that this is how much
the court has assigned for him to pay. The other parent doesn't even need
to be mentioned! You don't have to denigrate yourself by saying "I feel the
house payment is more important than you wearing the latest shoes!" And you
don't need to denigrate mom. Bring the kid into the process as much as you
can. After all, that child is going to have to budget a paycheck some day!

gini52
August 1st 03, 11:32 PM
"frazil" > wrote in message
...
>
> gini52 > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > gini52 > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "frazil" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Tracy > wrote in message
> > > > > news:VefUa.128554$GL4.33909@rwcrnsc53...
> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
arthlink.net...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > But...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >"Her Bank" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > >
> > ...
> > > > > > > > >> I agree with pretty much everything that has been said in
> > that
> > > > Dad
> > > > > > > > >> shouldn't have to always roll-over and be the good guy,
> > > however,
> > > > I
> > > > > > > > >> still think that it shouldn't be the kids business until
> > > they're
> > > > > > older,
> > > > > > > > >> at least until their mid-teens. If they're at the age
where
> > > > they're
> > > > > > > > >> wanting big-ticket items, like a car, then a little more
> > > > > explanation
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > >> to where money is going would be in order. But I agree
with
> > > > > > Moonshine,
> > > > > > > > >> that even in "intact" families, kids are frequently told
> 'We
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > >> afford that". There's no shame in that - it's a fact of
> > life.
> > > > The
> > > > > > > > >> shame is in having a child know that there's basically a
> > price
> > > > > > attached
> > > > > > > > >> to his head.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> >And that is why fathers have to teach their
> > > > > > > > >> >children the money mom's get from the state is
> > > > > > > > >> >really the father's money.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> They shouldn't even know to begin with, that mom gets
money
> > > from
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > >> "state".
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> When they're adults, there will be plenty of time and
> > > oppurtunity
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > > >> heart-to-heart talks, and the truth will come out then,
> AFTER
> > > > they
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > >> formed a relationship to both parents that wasn't
> influenced
> > by
> > > > who
> > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > >> doing what financially.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >> I was raised by my father, with mother being MIA thruout
my
> > > early
> > > > > > > > >> childhood. We knew we didn't have a lot of money, but it
> > never
> > > > > > > > >> translated to being mom's fault for not contributing. It
> > wasn't
> > > > > until
> > > > > > > > >> this May that I learned that my mother never gave my dad
> any
> > > > money,
> > > > > > not
> > > > > > > > >> even a few bucks here or there. Had I known that as a
kid,
> I
> > > > > probably
> > > > > > > > >> would have spent my whole chiidhood hating my mother and
> what
> > > > good
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > >> that have been?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Very well put, and I happen to agree with you. The only
> thing
> > a
> > > > > parent
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > >doing by making snide remarks towards the other parent is
> > causing
> > > > the
> > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > > >problems. It doesn't matter if what they are saying is the
> > > truth,
> > > > or
> > > > > > > > >lies... the fact remains that you are making snide remarks.
> It
> > > is
> > > > > > > playing
> > > > > > > > >games and putting your child in the middle. The best
policy
> is
> > > to
> > > > > > leave
> > > > > > > > >your child out of the games and not play with them.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I'm soooo glad I don't have this issue with my youngest
son's
> > > > father.
> > > > > > In
> > > > > > > > >fact it has been just the opposite. When our son starts
> > begging
> > > > for
> > > > > > > > >something and doesn't take 'no' for an answer, we (dad,
> myself,
> > > and
> > > > > our
> > > > > > > son)
> > > > > > > > >talks about it together. Amazing!!! Oh my gosh, what a
> > concept.
> > > > > > Right?
> > > > > > > > >Well, I don't know. I feel there are many families,
> primarily
> > > > > intact,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > >talk to their kids on that level and the parents do it
> > together.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Bottom-line: There is no reason to put your child in the
> middle
> > > of
> > > > > any
> > > > > > > issue
> > > > > > > > >you have with your ex.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > when the ex goes after money which is being spent on the
> > > child....it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > > longer just between "you and your ex". There is also the
> matter
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > > > parent's
> > > > > > > > job of raising a child with good social values - not being
> done
> > > too
> > > > > well
> > > > > > > when
> > > > > > > > you give mom's poor choices a thum's-up by remaining silent
> > about
> > > > > them.
> > > > > > > I'd
> > > > > > > > hate to have my daughter see her mother as a positive role
> model
> > > and
> > > > > > > decide
> > > > > > > > that mom's way of doing thing is better than mine becuase
it's
> > > > easier
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > profitable.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't believe some of the things I am reading in this
thread.
> > One
> > > > > would
> > > > > > > think the only way fathers can show their love for their
> children
> > is
> > > > to
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > an economic provider who keeps his mouth shut when the child's
> > > welfare
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > economic well-being are at risk. These same people advocate
> > > increased
> > > > > > > father involvement with children, yet when that involvement
has
> > > > anything
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > do with the child's understanding of financial matters that
> > include
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > mother, the father's role is to shut up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One of the significant roles a father plays in a child's life
is
> > as
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > teacher and role model. When a father helps their child
> > understand
> > > > what
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > going on with CS money that is being paid but is not being
used
> > for
> > > > the
> > > > > > > well-being of the child, they are fulfilling their role as
> teacher
> > > and
> > > > > > role
> > > > > > > model.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your statements are so far from the truth it isn't even worth
> > > responding
> > > > > to.
> > > > > > The issue is raising a child in divorce without trashing the
other
> > > > parent.
> > > > > > It has really nothing to do with money, or fathers. Get a
clue...
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes trashing the other parent is an important issue. But money is
> > often
> > > > the
> > > > > weapon wielded when trashing the other parent. When a mother
says,
> "I
> > > > can't
> > > > > afford it. Ask your father" she is subtly trashing the father.
And
> > when
> > > I
> > > > > father says "I already gave your mother the money to buy it" He is
> > > subtly
> > > > > trashing the mother. Truth be told, What each is really saying is
> > that
> > > > they
> > > > > don't want to spend money on what the child wants.
> > > > ==
> > > > That is what the mother,as the recipient of said money, is saying.
> The
> > > > father may *want* to spend money on what the child wants, but might
> not
> > be
> > > > able to because all his "discretionary" spending money was already
> given
> > > to
> > > > the mother.
> > > > ==
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > I understand what you are saying, and can more than empathize with
your
> > > position. The difference, that makes it trashing of the other parent,
> is
> > > the failure to take responsibility for the answer you give. The
bottom
> > line
> > > is that I think any parent would spend the money to buy what they
> believe
> > > the child needs. When CP says "can't afford it, ask dad" and NCP says
> "I
> > > give Mom money for that, ask her". Each is saying that "There are
more
> > > important things that I must spend money on", and their subtle excuse
is
> > > either I don't get enough from the NCP, or I give too much to the CP."
> > IOW
> > > how you spend the money at your disposal is your choice, and it is
wrong
> > to
> > > pass off the responsibility for that choice on the other parent.
> > ==
> > Frazil, When a parent is forced to pay lifestyle child support,
> > how they spend their money is no longer their choice and there is
nothing
> > subtle in it at all.
> > Indeed there *were* more important things we had to spend our money
> > on--food, rent/mortgage,
> > insurance, diapers, gasoline. This was no subtle excuse--it was reality.
>
> Agreed.
>
> To
> > make this into a traumatizing
> > event for the child seems more than a little reaching. My stepkids
> certainly
> > aren't damaged for life over the
> > financial roles their parents came to play. They know their mother had
the
> > money and they know she didn't
> > spend it on them.
>
> If they knew, why are you compelled to state the obvious?
>
>
> They also know we were broke. My stepson knows it somewhat
> > better since he's been living with us
> > for the past 4 years while we have still been paying his mother. This
has
> > resulted in his realization that he has a responsibility
> > to work and carry his own financial weight while he has lived here and
is
> > attending college. He doesn't contribute to
> > the household finances but he does pay for his own clothing,
entertainment
> > and college expenses that are not included in tuition. He is also an
> honor
> > student. That is life.
>
> My point is that you have control how the money at your disposal is spent.
> And how that money is spent is your choice.
===
My point is that we didn't have that control or choice. One has a choice
over
discretionary spending. Life necessities are not discretionary.
===
>If you feel it is more
> important to pay the mortgage than buy soccer shoes, so be it.
> But that
> choice is yours. Do not blame the other parent for your belief that it is
> more importent to pay your mortgage, than pay for soccer shoes.
===
Whoa...how did you come to that conclusion with the information
in this thread? That's a little skewing of deductive reasoning. We did not
blame the mother because we paid our mortgage
nor did I state a belief that it is more important to pay a mortgage than
buy soccer shoes.
Although, I will now state that makes much more sound financial sense when
given the two options
of payment *with the same money.* Your mistake however, is defining the
mortgage money as the
soccer money. Again, the soccer money was given to the mother as mandated by
the state. Soccer money is not the
same money as the mortgage money. BTW, It is common sense to pay for
housing/necessities first and prioritize
disposable money as occasion dictates--I hope we all do that. A child with
soccer shoes and no place to
live can get pretty chilly in winter. nuf sed.
===
===

Tracy
August 2nd 03, 01:06 AM
"~August" > wrote in message
...
> "Tracy" > wrote in message
> news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
> >
> Tracey - please clarify your definition of "trashing". Because on the one
> hand, i want to agree with what you say.... "Dont put the kids in the
> middle. Dont "Trash" the parent to the kid" But on the other hand, it
> seems as if your definition of "trashing" is to say anything negative
about
> the other parent at all. Dont you automatically trash the other parent
> every time you tell your child you disagree with what the other parent is
> doing? Even if you dont come right out and say it?


If I have a disagreement with the other parent, I don't talk to my child
about it. I talk to the other parent. I've have disagreements with the
actions of my son's father. I did not talk to my son about it. Instead I
talk to his father about it. Him and I have not had major issues with our
son because we have always drawn that line - we don't involve our son in our
issues with each other.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about and how it impacts someone's
thinking.

My boyfriend's 9 year old daughter acted up while on a camping trip. I
won't go into details, but her and I ended up talking in my SUV for 45
minutes - alone. She proceeded to tell me how the mother of her mother's
boyfriend trashes her maternal grandmother, because the grandmother has
vocally expressed her disapproval of her daughter's choices (cheating on her
husband and leaving the family). The maternal grandmother will have nothing
to do with her daughter's boyfriend, nor is he allowed on her property. So
this little girl is sad. Just finished crying her eyes out with her father,
and now is talking to me. She hears her maternal grandmother being called a
"wicked witch", and other choice names.

Now - I could have sat there and took the approach of trashing others, but I
didn't. "Trashing" as in - "the only wicked witch around is [ex's
boyfriend's name]'s mother", "your mother is stupid for what she did", "your
mother's boyfriend is scum", etc...

Instead I sat there holding her and made a joke about her grandmother being
a "witch". I told her what is really important is what she knows is the
truth, and that is inside her heart. I told her she is a little girl who
should be enjoying her childhood and not concern herself with what others
feel. So we talked about not allowing stuff like that hurt her and some
ways she can cope. This young girl laughed at my joke, she smiled when we
talked about the good things in her childhood, and she felt much better.

I can sit down and talk to those kids and get them to feel more relaxed when
talking about their mother and what is going on currently than my
boyfriend - or anyone else on the mother's side of the family. Why?
Because I listen and get them to see good... I'm more disconnected from the
situation so my emotions don't take control.

Many people involved in divorce will get on the defensive and proceed to
"trash" the other parties (ex, ex's family, etc) without really knowing what
they are doing. In the process it hurts their children. That is why
children of divorce have it difficult, and there are many books written on
this subject. Go and pick up any of them. They'll agree with me. The
thing is that this takes time. Lots of time, because you have to heal after
a divorce. It is very difficult dealing with someone you are very angry at,
etc.

The above is a big reason why I support shared parenting time, and strongly
believe there should be free counseling/help available for the first year
after a divorce for those with children. This way the family can get the
help they need and learn how to deal with each other. Depending on the ages
of the children, that newly divorced couple (who could be very angry at each
other) will need to learn to get along on a totally different level. It is
very hard to get to that point, and it can take years. In the meantime -
who ends up getting hurt?


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 2nd 03, 02:27 AM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tracy" > wrote
> ...........................................
> >
> > Many people involved in divorce will get on the defensive and proceed to
> > "trash" the other parties (ex, ex's family, etc) without really knowing
> what
> > they are doing. In the process it hurts their children. That is why
> > children of divorce have it difficult, and there are many books written
on
> > this subject. Go and pick up any of them. They'll agree with me. The
> > thing is that this takes time. Lots of time, because you have to heal
> after
> > a divorce. It is very difficult dealing with someone you are very angry
> at,
> > etc.
> >
> > The above is a big reason why I support shared parenting time, and
> strongly
> > believe there should be free counseling/help available for the first
year
> > after a divorce for those with children. This way the family can get
the
> > help they need and learn how to deal with each other. Depending on the
> ages
> > of the children, that newly divorced couple (who could be very angry at
> each
> > other) will need to learn to get along on a totally different level. It
> is
> > very hard to get to that point, and it can take years. In the
meantime -
> > who ends up getting hurt?
> ==
> My parents got divorced after 37 years of marriage. My dad left my mom for
a
> younger
> woman. He felt the need to justify his actions to us kids by telling us
> everything he felt
> was wrong with my mother. It was an unnecessarily ugly divorce. I still
> haven't gotten over it.
> I don't see my dad much due to the way he handled the divorce. I need to
get
> over it. He is
> old and quite sickly. (Recall, that when I saw my dad in the hospital a
few
> months ago, he told
> me he regretted the divorce. I still haven't told my mom that.) Anyway,
what
> I'm saying is that divorce does
> damage kids, no matter how "civil" and no matter the age of the kids. My
> dad's behavour and what Tracy's friend's daughter is going through is
> certainly damaging. These incidences, though are much more profound than
> telling a child you can't afford to buy them soccer shoes because you gave
> the money to their mother.


exactly... and here's a big {hug} for you Gini. I wish I knew the magical
words...



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

gini52
August 2nd 03, 02:48 AM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:MrEWa.31137$cF.11323@rwcrnsc53...
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tracy" > wrote
> > ...........................................
> > >
> > > Many people involved in divorce will get on the defensive and proceed
to
> > > "trash" the other parties (ex, ex's family, etc) without really
knowing
> > what
> > > they are doing. In the process it hurts their children. That is why
> > > children of divorce have it difficult, and there are many books
written
> on
> > > this subject. Go and pick up any of them. They'll agree with me.
The
> > > thing is that this takes time. Lots of time, because you have to heal
> > after
> > > a divorce. It is very difficult dealing with someone you are very
angry
> > at,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > The above is a big reason why I support shared parenting time, and
> > strongly
> > > believe there should be free counseling/help available for the first
> year
> > > after a divorce for those with children. This way the family can get
> the
> > > help they need and learn how to deal with each other. Depending on
the
> > ages
> > > of the children, that newly divorced couple (who could be very angry
at
> > each
> > > other) will need to learn to get along on a totally different level.
It
> > is
> > > very hard to get to that point, and it can take years. In the
> meantime -
> > > who ends up getting hurt?
> > ==
> > My parents got divorced after 37 years of marriage. My dad left my mom
for
> a
> > younger
> > woman. He felt the need to justify his actions to us kids by telling us
> > everything he felt
> > was wrong with my mother. It was an unnecessarily ugly divorce. I still
> > haven't gotten over it.
> > I don't see my dad much due to the way he handled the divorce. I need to
> get
> > over it. He is
> > old and quite sickly. (Recall, that when I saw my dad in the hospital a
> few
> > months ago, he told
> > me he regretted the divorce. I still haven't told my mom that.) Anyway,
> what
> > I'm saying is that divorce does
> > damage kids, no matter how "civil" and no matter the age of the kids. My
> > dad's behavour and what Tracy's friend's daughter is going through is
> > certainly damaging. These incidences, though are much more profound than
> > telling a child you can't afford to buy them soccer shoes because you
gave
> > the money to their mother.
>
>
> exactly... and here's a big {hug} for you Gini. I wish I knew the magical
> words...
==
Thanks :-)
==
==
>
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***
>
>
>

August
August 2nd 03, 03:52 AM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:BgDWa.44486$o%2.22167@sccrnsc02...
> "~August" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
> > >
> > Tracey - please clarify your definition of "trashing". Because on the
one
> > hand, i want to agree with what you say.... "Dont put the kids in the
> > middle. Dont "Trash" the parent to the kid" But on the other hand, it
> > seems as if your definition of "trashing" is to say anything negative
> about
> > the other parent at all. Dont you automatically trash the other parent
> > every time you tell your child you disagree with what the other parent
is
> > doing? Even if you dont come right out and say it?
>
>
> If I have a disagreement with the other parent, I don't talk to my child
> about it. I talk to the other parent. I've have disagreements with the
> actions of my son's father. I did not talk to my son about it. Instead I
> talk to his father about it. Him and I have not had major issues with our
> son because we have always drawn that line - we don't involve our son in
our
> issues with each other.
>
> Here's an example of what I'm talking about and how it impacts someone's
> thinking.
>
> My boyfriend's 9 year old daughter acted up while on a camping trip. I
> won't go into details, but her and I ended up talking in my SUV for 45
> minutes - alone. She proceeded to tell me how the mother of her mother's
> boyfriend trashes her maternal grandmother, because the grandmother has
> vocally expressed her disapproval of her daughter's choices (cheating on
her
> husband and leaving the family). The maternal grandmother will have
nothing
> to do with her daughter's boyfriend, nor is he allowed on her property.
So
> this little girl is sad. Just finished crying her eyes out with her
father,
> and now is talking to me. She hears her maternal grandmother being called
a
> "wicked witch", and other choice names.
>
> Now - I could have sat there and took the approach of trashing others, but
I
> didn't. "Trashing" as in - "the only wicked witch around is [ex's
> boyfriend's name]'s mother", "your mother is stupid for what she did",
"your
> mother's boyfriend is scum", etc...
>
> Instead I sat there holding her and made a joke about her grandmother
being
> a "witch". I told her what is really important is what she knows is the
> truth, and that is inside her heart. I told her she is a little girl who
> should be enjoying her childhood and not concern herself with what others
> feel. So we talked about not allowing stuff like that hurt her and some
> ways she can cope. This young girl laughed at my joke, she smiled when we
> talked about the good things in her childhood, and she felt much better.


Ok. Understood. To make such remarks like:
"the only wicked witch around is [ex's boyfriend's name]'s mother", "your
mother is stupid for what she did", "your mother's boyfriend is scum",
etc...
is clearly "trashing" as i relate to the definition. But i notice in what
you said to the little girl (and i'm sure a lot more was said than what you
wrote) that you didn address the issue that was causing the anger in the
first place. From what i read, it seems as if the issue (infidelity and the
anger it has caused this woman) should not be spoke with to the girl.
Instead you focused on making the girl feel good about herself despite what
all was going on around her.

Now, if you had said to the girl, something to the effect of...
"the mother of your mother's boyfriend trashes your maternal grandmother
because she is unhappy about the choices she made. I dont agree with those
choices either and i would never act that way because (insert your moral
beliefs here) and i would hope that you grow up and not act that way either.
but doing bad things doesnt necessarily make you a bad person and this issue
is between your mom and the grandma. I'm sorry she is saying things that
make you feel bad. Sometimes folks dont think about what they are actually
saying when they are angry like that." And then you continued with stuff
about not allowing those things to hurt her and how to cope.
It appears in what i just wrote, that both the mother and the grandmother
have been trashed according to your definition.

I am not trying to debate what should or should not have been said... i am
trying to understand your definition of trashing someone. I understand it to
mean (to you) "saying anything negative at all about the other person". Am
i understanding you correctly?

~August

~August
August 6th 03, 02:50 PM
"Tracy" > wrote in message
et...
> "August" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > news:BgDWa.44486$o%2.22167@sccrnsc02...
> > > "~August" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > "Tracy" > wrote in message
> > > > news:vSIVa.16075$o%2.10457@sccrnsc02...
>
> > I am not trying to debate what should or should not have been said... i
am
> > trying to understand your definition of trashing someone. I understand
it
> to
> > mean (to you) "saying anything negative at all about the other person".
> Am
> > i understanding you correctly?
>
>
> Yes -

OK.
Well, i think it is a little too simplistic, but it helps me undertsand you
better whe reading your posts, which is why i was asking.


> and please read what Gini had to say. The impact to a child can be
> detrimental to the child - not to mention the relationship between parent
&
> child. All I wish parents would do is stop putting their children in the
> middle. Let their children be children, and if they have a problem with
the
> other parent (something was said, done, etc) then address it with the
> parent - not the child.

teachrmama
August 8th 03, 05:31 AM
So, Joy, do you go out and buy a fancy new car for yourself, go off on
vacation, leaving your child at Grandma's, buy your new boyfriend a stereo
system for his car--then tell your child that she needs to ask Dad for
school clothes, because you don't have the money? Do you think it is fair
for CP's to do that? I understand your situation and can see it from your
perspective--can you step back and see the situation described above from
the NCP's point of view?

"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age of 1
> 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with coming
> up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father cared
> enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month took
> me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3 times
> per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I remarried
> when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school for
> several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to go
> to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get her
> there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my education
> and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went to
> the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time he
> made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank account
> and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the child.
> The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would allow
> with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a car,
> don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your children
> live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or anything
> for the common living area that the children also enjoy those things?
> I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't contact
> her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see her
> and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the car
> and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan or
> NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced in
> any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his child
> why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and then, I
> do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do and if
> I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> buy myself something, then so be it!
>
> "Simpledog" > wrote in message
>...
> > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
> > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts,
showing
> > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money
for
> > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue
stream
> > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to
500
> > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put
100
> > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got
wise,
> > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good
parent,
> > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them?
No.
> > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A
2
> > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> >
> > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money
on,
> > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
> > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> >
> >
> > "Test" > wrote in message
> > ble.rogers.com...
> > > So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning
to
> > see
> > > where that money goes:
> > >
> > > - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> > > - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> > > - new mini-van
> > > - new house
> > > - trips
> > > - other non-kid things
> > >
> > > And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan,
day
> > > care, clothes, etc.
> > >
> > > Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

gini52
August 9th 03, 01:49 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age of 1
> 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with coming
> up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father cared
> enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month took
> me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3 times
> per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I remarried
> when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school for
> several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to go
> to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get her
> there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my education
> and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went to
> the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time he
> made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank account
> and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the child.
> The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would allow
> with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a car,
> don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your children
> live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or anything
> for the common living area that the children also enjoy those things?
> I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't contact
> her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see her
> and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the car
> and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan or
> NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced in
> any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his child
> why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and then, I
> do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do and if
> I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> buy myself something, then so be it!
===
What legislatures/courts have done, which seems perfectly suitable to you,
is
move away from requiring NCPs to support their children, to requiring them
to
provide a lifestyle for the CP. Now the assumption is that this excess
"child support"
will trickle down to the child. There are at least two problems with this
from the NCP's
perspective. 1. Renaming alimony as child support requires the NCP to pay
taxes on the
money instead of the recipient CP. Alimony is taxable to the receiver while
child support is not.
This tax is a significant addition to the "child support obligation." 2.
While the NCP is
mandated to hand over lifestyle money to the CP, the CP is rarely required
to spend the money on the child. Of course, many CPs (such as yourself)
relish in this sleight of hand
handout, and take delight in spending it on whatever they chose rather than
providing
extra means for the child. Every dollar of the child's money you spend on
yourself is money
stolen from the child. If you are receiving more "child support" than the
child needs, you are simply
expecting a handout for the simple virtue of having produced and raised a
child. The father does not
"owe" you this. That you can't "get a day off" is the reality of parenting.
If you wanted days off you should
not have chosen to have a child. If you spend the child's money on a new
car, where will the child get the money when it is time for him/her to get a
car? What about college? Where will that money come from? Are you setting
aside money for these things or will you tell her you can't afford it? I can
assure you the time will come that the child will learn how much "child
support" was paid for her and will question the whereabouts of the money. I
guess at that time, you will just have to tell her that the child support
was yours by entitlement and you spent it on yourself and "so be it."
===
===

Joy B
August 9th 03, 04:18 AM
First-I tried to improve the relationship he has with my child. He
still to this day will not call my house because I have remarried and
he's afraid my husband might answer. He doesn't want to talk to him,
yet he is remarried himself. I was not fighting over child support, it
never got that far because he fought me on everything else. He didn't
want the divorce. He was a drinker and told me he never wanted our
child and if he could go back now and change his mind he would've
never had her. Knowing myself that I wanted more children someday, and
I didn't want my daughter being with a man who never wanted her and
had no qualms about saying this in front of my child. I tried to
improve my relationship with him but everytime I called him he started
yelling at me about getting a divorce. How this shouldn't happen to
him because he fails at nothing and he wasn't going to fail at
marriage no matter what. I never used money against him. Like I said,
I was working and going to school. CS did not even cover daycare. The
compromise that I put forth was since he was so close and home in the
evenings he could help out taking care of her while I was in school.
He wouldn't do it. I worked and put him through school while we were
married and he didn't want to see me get ahead. He wanted it to be as
tough as possible. Whenever I asked for help with any child related
problems, my daughter was scared of everything, her own shadow, I
tried to involve him in parenting and ask for advice on whether to get
counseling or not. He had no opinion, he said if I wanted to be
divorced, then I could be alone in parenting also. When I finally went
to CSE for more money was when I had exhausted all other avenues of
trying to get him to help out. I am not spending less than $850/mo to
raise my child. My point was that I do not need to get a seperate bank
account and seperate my purchases at the checkout. When my CS came
between my paychecks-if I spend some of that money on me then fine. I
will not carry two bank accounts and go through two checkouts at the
store to satisfy his need to still control my life. Also in my
defense, I have a prepaid college fund for my daughter, a savings
account of which I deposit a percentage of CS every month. She takes
karate, piano and art classes. I also give her her own spending money
whenever she visits her paternal grandmother. Not to mention that I
never ask her father to buy ANY extras as that is what CS is for.
Also, she wears glasses and her eyes are rapidly getting worse so I
spend about $350 per year on glasses.
Second- I hope she does have a nice long talk with him. I have spent
years of my life making excuses as to why he doesn't call or write or
visit. Only to save my daughter from the pain of why. I will look
forward to the day when he has to squirm and answer all of those
questions. I only hope for my daughter's sake he has the decency to
lie!
Third- I know that that is part of being a parent but so is supporting
them. If a man doesn't want to support a child he should think twice
about having them. I wouldn't change anything that I have had to do to
take care of my daughter. In my eyes I have the most rewarding job of
all and from my perspective if my ex doesn't want to be a part of it,
it's his loss. I don't feel sorry for him at all. I feel sorry for my
daughter.
Just one more thing in my defense, my ex-family- mother in law,
brother in law, etc.-they support me in every way. They are angered
that he doesn't see her also. I don't see where I'm wrong in this- my
world revolves around my child and I will do whatever it takes to give
her a happy life even if it means getting more money from her father.
"Tracy" > wrote in message news:<ypQYa.98028$uu5.13280@sccrnsc04>...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
>
> [snip]
> > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> [snip]
> > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo.
>
> No I don't feel it is worth $850/month, and his income has nothing to do
> with it.
>
> First - $350/month from someone who is making $40k/yr is a lot of money. It
> is more than 10% of gross, and was more than fair. I personally can't
> believe you were fighting in court with this man over child support. Money
> won't replace him as a father figure in your child's life. Instead of
> trying to improve that relationship with him for the sake of your child, you
> went after him for more money. Ok, the man may have been a real jerk - but
> there why did he stay away? It seems to me you used money (child support)
> as a ticket for revenge against him.
>
> Second - Ask yourself this... some day your child will be an adult. Some
> day that child may go and have a nice long talk with dad. Think about what
> dad may say to that child.
>
> Third - what you described in your sob story is exactly what it means to be
> a parent. Regardless if you went through it as a single parent, or
> married... you went through it because you are a parent. Sure it isn't
> easy - but it is part of being a parent, and no one should be paid for being
> a parent.
>
> > I sure do and if
> > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> > buy myself something, then so be it!
>
> If it is costing you less than $850/month to raise just that one child, then
> you are in the wrong in spending any of it on yourself. Instead you should
> be taking anything that is left over and putting it into an account for your
> child - or reduce that support payment. The above sentence is why I really
> believe you used child support as a means to get revenge against your
> ex-husband. The above is just one of the major reasons why many NCP's, some
> CP's (like myself), and many second spouses to NCP's, are fed up with the
> system. No CP should have the capability of receiving more support than is
> necessary, and support should be for the child not the CP.
>
>
> Tracy
> ~~~~~~~
> http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
> "You can't solve problems with the same
> type of thinking that created them."
> Albert Einstein
>
> *** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Joy B
August 9th 03, 05:04 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message >...
> So, Joy, do you go out and buy a fancy new car for yourself, go off on
> vacation, leaving your child at Grandma's, buy your new boyfriend a stereo
> system for his car--then tell your child that she needs to ask Dad for
> school clothes, because you don't have the money? Do you think it is fair
> for CP's to do that? I understand your situation and can see it from your
> perspective--can you step back and see the situation described above from
> the NCP's point of view?

I can see the point of view and I agree with you. I have never bought
a new car. I always buy used to get the best value. I never buy a
sport car, I buy safe cars.The last vacation I went on without my
child was my honeymoon and I can tell you honestly that CS did not pay
for that. I never got enough money to enable me to stay home. I never
asked him or had my child ask him for extras.I worked 2 jobs, CS was
not and is not my only source of income and when I bought a gift for
my boyfriend I certainly didn't spend beyond my means. My point is, if
he couldn't and still can't pick up the phone to call and see how she
is or if she needs a dad to talk to or just to say hi, who is he to
question how she is being raised? He doesn't have any clue what it
takes to raise a child. When I remarried, I offered him to come and
meet my new husband and see what kind of environment she was living in
and he said it hurt HIM too much. What about his child. When he
remarried, I insisted on meeting the woman who would care for my child
if anything ever happened to me. She invites him to her birthday party
every year and he won't come. There have even been times when my
husband had to be out of town so he wouldn't have to meet him and he
still wouldn't come. Since everyone is so hyped about this receipt
thing, why not a compromise. Court ordered, 3 months, I guarantee that
would be enough (in my case) to prove the money goes nowhere else. I
just have a problem with having to do this for years on end. With
children the expense only goes up. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I
don't get my hair done, I've had the same pair of tennis shoes for 3
years, I don't use credit cards unless it's an unexpected car or home
repair and I buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I do not waste the CS. It
goes where it is supposed to. I have a savings acct. for her, a
prepaid college fund, she takes piano, karate and art lessons and
everything she needs, I go out and get it. She knows her father helps
with the checks that come from him, what she doesn't know is why HE
isn't "there".
>
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age of 1
> > 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> > child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> > working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with coming
> > up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father cared
> > enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month took
> > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> > all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> > wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3 times
> > per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I remarried
> > when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school for
> > several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> > lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> > hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to go
> > to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get her
> > there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my education
> > and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went to
> > the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> > different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time he
> > made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank account
> > and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the child.
> > The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> > increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> > lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would allow
> > with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a car,
> > don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your children
> > live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or anything
> > for the common living area that the children also enjoy those things?
> > I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> > emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't contact
> > her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see her
> > and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the car
> > and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> > child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan or
> > NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced in
> > any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his child
> > why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and then, I
> > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do and if
> > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> > buy myself something, then so be it!
> >
> > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from CS,
> > > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts,
> showing
> > > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the money
> for
> > > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another revenue
> stream
> > > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we 'agreed' to
> 500
> > > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I put
> 100
> > > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got
> wise,
> > > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good
> parent,
> > > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to them?
> No.
> > > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy? A
> 2
> > > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> > >
> > > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the money
> on,
> > > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for the
> > > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Test" > wrote in message
> > > ble.rogers.com...
> > > > So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now beginning
> to
> see
> > > > where that money goes:
> > > >
> > > > - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> > > > - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> > > > - new mini-van
> > > > - new house
> > > > - trips
> > > > - other non-kid things
> > > >
> > > > And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education plan,
> day
> > > > care, clothes, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

Joy B
August 9th 03, 07:38 AM
Please read the reponses to the posts from the other members of your
lynch mob. No, I do not drive a new car. No I don't go on vacations.
No I don't wear designer clothes and get my hair done. Yes my child
has school clothes, food, utilities, prepaid college plan, a savings
account, karate lessons, piano lessons and art classes. She also gets
her glasses when she needs them. She doesn't NEED anything as I get it
when she needs it. She gets an allowance and has to save her money for
things she wants that are extravagant. What I won't do is
differentiate "my" money from "his" money when my child and I are in a
store and I am buying things for both of us. So why am I so bad for
making the man who helped bring this child into this world to help
support her? You act like the money is flowing like a river. She knows
her father sends money to help, what she doesn't know is why he
doesn't contact her. I only wish I could go to court and make him do
that! BTW, I do have a seperate bank account from my new husband. He
doesn't use the CS for anything. I wonder also when the day comes that
she decides to get married, do you all think he will pitch in on the
cost of the wedding? I don't. That's why my new husband has a savings
account for that. BTW, he puts his own hard earned money into that. I
wonder too, if her father will want to be the one to give her away? If
he does, my husband will graciously step aside. If my daughter asks
one day where all the child support went, I guess I'll just hand her
the bank book or the car she'll get with that money. I'm sorry but I
work hard at my job and as a mom. I am not a greedy money hungry cow
sitting around all day doing nothing but shopping with my CS. My
daughter is well taken care of and I couldn't give her such a good
life w/o CS. How cheap do you think it is to raise a child? My husband
pays all the household bills. Including groceries, thus leaving more
of the CS for my daughter's needs. I love my child and my life
revolves around her. I would never take from her for my own
betterment. I take from myself to give to her.

"gini52" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age of 1
> > 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> > child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> > working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with coming
> > up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father cared
> > enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month took
> > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> > all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> > wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3 times
> > per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I remarried
> > when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school for
> > several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> > lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> > hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to go
> > to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get her
> > there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my education
> > and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went to
> > the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> > different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time he
> > made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank account
> > and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the child.
> > The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> > increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> > lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would allow
> > with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a car,
> > don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your children
> > live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or anything
> > for the common living area that the children also enjoy those things?
> > I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> > emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't contact
> > her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see her
> > and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the car
> > and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> > child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan or
> > NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced in
> > any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his child
> > why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and then, I
> > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do and if
> > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> > buy myself something, then so be it!
> ===
> What legislatures/courts have done, which seems perfectly suitable to you,
> is
> move away from requiring NCPs to support their children, to requiring them
> to
> provide a lifestyle for the CP. Now the assumption is that this excess
> "child support"
> will trickle down to the child. There are at least two problems with this
> from the NCP's
> perspective. 1. Renaming alimony as child support requires the NCP to pay
> taxes on the
> money instead of the recipient CP. Alimony is taxable to the receiver while
> child support is not.
> This tax is a significant addition to the "child support obligation." 2.
> While the NCP is
> mandated to hand over lifestyle money to the CP, the CP is rarely required
> to spend the money on the child. Of course, many CPs (such as yourself)
> relish in this sleight of hand
> handout, and take delight in spending it on whatever they chose rather than
> providing
> extra means for the child. Every dollar of the child's money you spend on
> yourself is money
> stolen from the child. If you are receiving more "child support" than the
> child needs, you are simply
> expecting a handout for the simple virtue of having produced and raised a
> child. The father does not
> "owe" you this. That you can't "get a day off" is the reality of parenting.
> If you wanted days off you should
> not have chosen to have a child. If you spend the child's money on a new
> car, where will the child get the money when it is time for him/her to get a
> car? What about college? Where will that money come from? Are you setting
> aside money for these things or will you tell her you can't afford it? I can
> assure you the time will come that the child will learn how much "child
> support" was paid for her and will question the whereabouts of the money. I
> guess at that time, you will just have to tell her that the child support
> was yours by entitlement and you spent it on yourself and "so be it."
> ===
> ===

teachrmama
August 9th 03, 08:56 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
>...
> > So, Joy, do you go out and buy a fancy new car for yourself, go off on
> > vacation, leaving your child at Grandma's, buy your new boyfriend a
stereo
> > system for his car--then tell your child that she needs to ask Dad for
> > school clothes, because you don't have the money? Do you think it is
fair
> > for CP's to do that? I understand your situation and can see it from
your
> > perspective--can you step back and see the situation described above
from
> > the NCP's point of view?
>
> I can see the point of view and I agree with you. I have never bought
> a new car. I always buy used to get the best value. I never buy a
> sport car, I buy safe cars.The last vacation I went on without my
> child was my honeymoon and I can tell you honestly that CS did not pay
> for that. I never got enough money to enable me to stay home. I never
> asked him or had my child ask him for extras.I worked 2 jobs, CS was
> not and is not my only source of income and when I bought a gift for
> my boyfriend I certainly didn't spend beyond my means. My point is, if
> he couldn't and still can't pick up the phone to call and see how she
> is or if she needs a dad to talk to or just to say hi, who is he to
> question how she is being raised? He doesn't have any clue what it
> takes to raise a child. When I remarried, I offered him to come and
> meet my new husband and see what kind of environment she was living in
> and he said it hurt HIM too much. What about his child. When he
> remarried, I insisted on meeting the woman who would care for my child
> if anything ever happened to me. She invites him to her birthday party
> every year and he won't come. There have even been times when my
> husband had to be out of town so he wouldn't have to meet him and he
> still wouldn't come. Since everyone is so hyped about this receipt
> thing, why not a compromise. Court ordered, 3 months, I guarantee that
> would be enough (in my case) to prove the money goes nowhere else. I
> just have a problem with having to do this for years on end. With
> children the expense only goes up. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I
> don't get my hair done, I've had the same pair of tennis shoes for 3
> years, I don't use credit cards unless it's an unexpected car or home
> repair and I buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I do not waste the CS. It
> goes where it is supposed to. I have a savings acct. for her, a
> prepaid college fund, she takes piano, karate and art lessons and
> everything she needs, I go out and get it. She knows her father helps
> with the checks that come from him, what she doesn't know is why HE
> isn't "there".

Here's the problem, Joy. You are talking about YOU. I don't doubt that you
are a great mother and use the CS for your daughter. But not all CPs do so.
How do you propose that those CPs who are spending CS on themselves rather
than their children be dealt with? Should they be stopped? How would the
system do that?

NCPs are weighed down with all sorts of requirements, just because they are
NCPs. The majority have their paychecks garnished--not because they didn't
pay, but because the CSE system in each state benefits for all CS
collected--so these days everything goes through them so they can get the
federal bucks. NCPs can lose their drivers and professional licenses if
they hit a bad patch and lose their jobs for a while. Their houses can have
liens placed on them. They can be required to find a job, even if it pays
less and is not in their field--then be charged CS based on the
higher-paying job that they lost. And all the while, the system will only
enforce the child support--not the visitation. CPs rarely experience these
things. And they have absolutely NO requirement to spend the $$ on the
children. All they have to do is meet minimal care requirements, and the
rest of the money is theirs.

Basically, all the wonderful, caring NCPs out there are being punished by
the behavior of the few scummy ones. If accountability for CS monies is
mandated, the wonderful, caring CPs will be in the same boat as the
wonderful, caring NCPs because of the few scummy ones. This idea isn't an
attack on you--and it would certainly be an inconvenience for you. But it
might go a long way toward helping a lot of children.

> >
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age of 1
> > > 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> > > child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> > > working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with coming
> > > up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father cared
> > > enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month took
> > > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at the
> > > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year because
> > > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support. During
> > > all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> > > wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3 times
> > > per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I remarried
> > > when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school for
> > > several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> > > lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> > > hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to go
> > > to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get her
> > > there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my education
> > > and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went to
> > > the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> > > different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time he
> > > made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank account
> > > and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the child.
> > > The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> > > increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> > > lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would allow
> > > with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a car,
> > > don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your children
> > > live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or anything
> > > for the common living area that the children also enjoy those things?
> > > I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> > > emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't contact
> > > her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see her
> > > and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the car
> > > and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> > > child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan or
> > > NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced in
> > > any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his child
> > > why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and then, I
> > > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do and if
> > > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month and
> > > buy myself something, then so be it!
> > >
> > > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money from
CS,
> > > > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with receipts,
> > showing
> > > > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of the
money
> > for
> > > > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another
revenue
> > stream
> > > > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we
'agreed' to
> > 500
> > > > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500 more. I
put
> > 100
> > > > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex got
> > wise,
> > > > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a good
> > parent,
> > > > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to
them?
> > No.
> > > > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she buy?
A
> > 2
> > > > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> > > >
> > > > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends the
money
> > on,
> > > > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended) for
the
> > > > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Test" > wrote in message
> > > > ble.rogers.com...
> > > > > So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now
beginning
> > to
> > see
> > > > > where that money goes:
> > > > >
> > > > > - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children (2)
> > > > > - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> > > > > - new mini-van
> > > > > - new house
> > > > > - trips
> > > > > - other non-kid things
> > > > >
> > > > > And surprisingly there is no money for the children's education
plan,
> > day
> > > > > care, clothes, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

gini52
August 9th 03, 03:49 PM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> Please read the reponses to the posts from the other members of your
> lynch mob.
===
This is not a lynch mob--It is a group of folks trying to impress upon you
that
child support has more than one perspective. Many CPs are very used to
hearing how much
"they" are owed for the child that CS, no matter how large the amount,
seems a divine right
simply by virtue of being the parent. In your first post, you portrayed this
attitude. You didn't
stand back until you were challenged to look at it from an NCP's
perspective. Then you changed
your attitude. I do respect you for that and for making sure your daughter's
present and future
needs are met. But, you did first state that you were fighting for more
support and that you would spend the support how you wished and "so be it."
Perhaps, you need a fresh read of your original post and see how it sounded.
Many CPs come in here spouting how much they are owed and leave or become
very hostile when their attitude is challenged. You didn't leave and only
became a little hostile ;-)
And, I am very aware what it costs to raise a child and it is nowhere near
850 a month. And remember,
the 850. is only the NCP's portion of what the government is assuming. So,
if you add your
ex's CS with your contribution, the money has gone well beyond supporting
the child. I have been an NCP, CP, stepmom, adoptive mom to a collective six
kids. According to the CS guidelines in our controlling jurisdiction, my
stepkids
(now grown) had a "support need" of over 2000. a month and our share was
1200. This clearly puts children of divorce in a preferred status over
children in intact familes (whose parents are under no obligation to provide
their children with "lifestyle" support). This has been a financial crisis
to many NCPs and their subsequent families (whose needs are frequently
ignored by the guidelines) and the folks here have gathered together to
discuss these issues, that are largely ignored and/or denied by legislatures
and courts. Now, here's the kicker--The states did not raise the child
support to lifestyle awards for the benefit of the children--If they did,
they would require some evidence that the money is spent on the kids.
Rather, they did it because the federal government told them that their
grant money would be tied to their child support collections. The government
has made our children pawns in the grab for federal dollars and alienated
NCPs from their children in the wake. They have relegated fathers to the
position of walking wallets and ignored the child's need to have both
parents actively involved in their lives by refusing to enforce custody and
co-parenting arrangements with the same vigor as collecting money. And, I do
recognize that there are NCPs (fathers and mothers) who, unfortunately,
would rather not be involved with their children but they still should not
be required to fund an illusionary lifestyle.
===
===

Bob Whiteside
August 9th 03, 06:57 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Please read the reponses to the posts from the other members of your
> > lynch mob.
> ===
> This is not a lynch mob--It is a group of folks trying to impress upon you
> that
> child support has more than one perspective. Many CPs are very used to
> hearing how much
> "they" are owed for the child that CS, no matter how large the amount,
> seems a divine right
> simply by virtue of being the parent. In your first post, you portrayed
this
> attitude. You didn't
> stand back until you were challenged to look at it from an NCP's
> perspective. Then you changed
> your attitude. I do respect you for that and for making sure your
daughter's
> present and future
> needs are met. But, you did first state that you were fighting for more
> support and that you would spend the support how you wished and "so be
it."
> Perhaps, you need a fresh read of your original post and see how it
sounded.
> Many CPs come in here spouting how much they are owed and leave or become
> very hostile when their attitude is challenged. You didn't leave and only
> became a little hostile ;-)
> And, I am very aware what it costs to raise a child and it is nowhere near
> 850 a month. And remember,
> the 850. is only the NCP's portion of what the government is assuming.
So,
> if you add your
> ex's CS with your contribution, the money has gone well beyond supporting
> the child. I have been an NCP, CP, stepmom, adoptive mom to a collective
six
> kids. According to the CS guidelines in our controlling jurisdiction, my
> stepkids
> (now grown) had a "support need" of over 2000. a month and our share was
> 1200. This clearly puts children of divorce in a preferred status over
> children in intact familes (whose parents are under no obligation to
provide
> their children with "lifestyle" support). This has been a financial crisis
> to many NCPs and their subsequent families (whose needs are frequently
> ignored by the guidelines) and the folks here have gathered together to
> discuss these issues, that are largely ignored and/or denied by
legislatures
> and courts. Now, here's the kicker--The states did not raise the child
> support to lifestyle awards for the benefit of the children--If they did,
> they would require some evidence that the money is spent on the kids.
> Rather, they did it because the federal government told them that their
> grant money would be tied to their child support collections. The
government
> has made our children pawns in the grab for federal dollars and alienated
> NCPs from their children in the wake. They have relegated fathers to the
> position of walking wallets and ignored the child's need to have both
> parents actively involved in their lives by refusing to enforce custody
and
> co-parenting arrangements with the same vigor as collecting money. And, I
do
> recognize that there are NCPs (fathers and mothers) who, unfortunately,
> would rather not be involved with their children but they still should not
> be required to fund an illusionary lifestyle.
> ===
> ===

Good points Gini. One of the key questions that no one seems to be able to
answer is "Why does it cost more to raise a child of divorce than a child in
an intact family?" The answer you are getting at is the CS awards for
children of divorce are loaded with hidden alimony for the mother to elevate
her lifestyle in the name of the children. A major issue that is not
considered in CS awards is how the cost of the children's time with their
fathers on visitations, while the father pays the nearly 30% of the costs
that travel with the children, is ignored by the system. This lack of full
cost accounting of where the children's expenses are paid causes fathers to
overpay CS, increasing the hidden alimony further.

And second, the government involvement in CS collections creates a counter
intuitive scenario. One would think that the Federal government paying the
states collection-to-cost bonuses would tend to hold down CS awards so they
could maximize their bonuses collecting lower CS awards. In fact, the
collection-to-cost bonuses give the states the incentive to selectively
increase CS awards aggressively against fathers they know have jobs and
assets while not increasing orders on lower income, harder to collect cases
like interstate orders. Fathers who work hard in attempts to recover
financially from the burden of high CS orders are penalized every 2-3 years
with ever increasing CS awards.

teachrmama
August 9th 03, 11:38 PM
You know that I more agree than disagree with your views on this, Kenneth.
But what was the "smoking gun" that made it possible for the system to be
put in place with no public outcry? It wasn't "We want women to have their
children and be supported by men." It was the long list of poster-boy
deadbeats that had not been caught and relieved of their money. "In the US
today, deadbeats owe their children over $XX million dollars. And we are
going after them!!" Unfortunately, as the system strengthened its grip on
society, even men who were behind because they lost a job and could only
make partial payments, or, like my husband, didn't even know they had a
child and found themselves instantly in arrears, or were handed retroactive
increases and found themselves in arrears found themselves branded with the
deadbeat label. Then, when the federal bucks for collections kicked in,
every NCP became the bad guy--even if they never missed a payment. But
that's not how it started--that's what it has evolved into--and now it
fights for its own survival at the cost of everyone who is touched by it.
And those deadbeats who are the poster-boys for the need for the system?
How many of them remain on the list year after year after year because they
are never apprehended? The majority, I think--and the kind, caring NCPs pay
a bigger and bigger price.

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> Teachrmama:
>
> While I agree with much of what you say below, I think you are wrong to
> attribute so much of the present oppressive nature of the "child
> support" enforcement system in the U.S. to what you call the "behavior
> of the few scummy ones" (noncustodial parents, that is).
>
> I think you get a far better understanding of what drives the present
> system if you look at something else: the fact that virtually all
> custodial parents (the recipients of "child support") are women and
> virtually all those who have to pay it are men. For many years in the
> U.S., men almost invariably have lost any battles where the interests of
> the two sexes are in conflict -- as in this case. That is because there
> is a feminist movement, but no significant "masculinist" movement, and
> because (for a variety of reasons) individual men are unwilling to
> defend their interests against encroachment by individual women.
>
> If you doubt this, look at the joint custody situation. It's clear
> that joint custody is a very good way of ensuring that the money is paid
> by fathers. So why, if ensuring payment is the prime objective, don't
> we have more joint custody? The answer is that mothers don't want any
> diminution in their power. That's also much of the reason why we have
> the present CS arrangements, since one important element is that CS,
> plus Draconian enforcement of it, makes it easier for mothers to
> establish single parent families, and that contributes towards enhancing
> women's power at the expense of the fathers of their children.
>
> I agree that there are several factors in the situation. However, the
> MAJOR one is the political drive behind any moves to enlarge the options
> available to women -- if necessary at the expense of men and children.
> That's the dirty little secret behind all this kind of thing. It's
> presented as being in the interests of children, but the interests of
> children are best served by growing up in two-parent families, not
> families from which the fathers have been expelled.
>
>
>
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > So, Joy, do you go out and buy a fancy new car for yourself, go off
on
> > > > vacation, leaving your child at Grandma's, buy your new boyfriend a
> > stereo
> > > > system for his car--then tell your child that she needs to ask Dad
for
> > > > school clothes, because you don't have the money? Do you think it
is
> > fair
> > > > for CP's to do that? I understand your situation and can see it
from
> > your
> > > > perspective--can you step back and see the situation described above
> > from
> > > > the NCP's point of view?
> > >
> > > I can see the point of view and I agree with you. I have never bought
> > > a new car. I always buy used to get the best value. I never buy a
> > > sport car, I buy safe cars.The last vacation I went on without my
> > > child was my honeymoon and I can tell you honestly that CS did not pay
> > > for that. I never got enough money to enable me to stay home. I never
> > > asked him or had my child ask him for extras.I worked 2 jobs, CS was
> > > not and is not my only source of income and when I bought a gift for
> > > my boyfriend I certainly didn't spend beyond my means. My point is, if
> > > he couldn't and still can't pick up the phone to call and see how she
> > > is or if she needs a dad to talk to or just to say hi, who is he to
> > > question how she is being raised? He doesn't have any clue what it
> > > takes to raise a child. When I remarried, I offered him to come and
> > > meet my new husband and see what kind of environment she was living in
> > > and he said it hurt HIM too much. What about his child. When he
> > > remarried, I insisted on meeting the woman who would care for my child
> > > if anything ever happened to me. She invites him to her birthday party
> > > every year and he won't come. There have even been times when my
> > > husband had to be out of town so he wouldn't have to meet him and he
> > > still wouldn't come. Since everyone is so hyped about this receipt
> > > thing, why not a compromise. Court ordered, 3 months, I guarantee that
> > > would be enough (in my case) to prove the money goes nowhere else. I
> > > just have a problem with having to do this for years on end. With
> > > children the expense only goes up. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I
> > > don't get my hair done, I've had the same pair of tennis shoes for 3
> > > years, I don't use credit cards unless it's an unexpected car or home
> > > repair and I buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I do not waste the CS. It
> > > goes where it is supposed to. I have a savings acct. for her, a
> > > prepaid college fund, she takes piano, karate and art lessons and
> > > everything she needs, I go out and get it. She knows her father helps
> > > with the checks that come from him, what she doesn't know is why HE
> > > isn't "there".
> >
> > Here's the problem, Joy. You are talking about YOU. I don't doubt that
you
> > are a great mother and use the CS for your daughter. But not all CPs do
so.
> > How do you propose that those CPs who are spending CS on themselves
rather
> > than their children be dealt with? Should they be stopped? How would
the
> > system do that?
> >
> > NCPs are weighed down with all sorts of requirements, just because they
are
> > NCPs. The majority have their paychecks garnished--not because they
didn't
> > pay, but because the CSE system in each state benefits for all CS
> > collected--so these days everything goes through them so they can get
the
> > federal bucks. NCPs can lose their drivers and professional licenses if
> > they hit a bad patch and lose their jobs for a while. Their houses can
have
> > liens placed on them. They can be required to find a job, even if it
pays
> > less and is not in their field--then be charged CS based on the
> > higher-paying job that they lost. And all the while, the system will
only
> > enforce the child support--not the visitation. CPs rarely experience
these
> > things. And they have absolutely NO requirement to spend the $$ on the
> > children. All they have to do is meet minimal care requirements, and
the
> > rest of the money is theirs.
> >
> > Basically, all the wonderful, caring NCPs out there are being punished
by
> > the behavior of the few scummy ones. If accountability for CS monies is
> > mandated, the wonderful, caring CPs will be in the same boat as the
> > wonderful, caring NCPs because of the few scummy ones. This idea isn't
an
> > attack on you--and it would certainly be an inconvenience for you. But
it
> > might go a long way toward helping a lot of children.
> >
> > > >
> > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age
of 1
> > > > > 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> > > > > child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> > > > > working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with
coming
> > > > > up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father
cared
> > > > > enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month
took
> > > > > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > > > > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at
the
> > > > > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year
because
> > > > > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support.
During
> > > > > all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> > > > > wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3
times
> > > > > per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I
remarried
> > > > > when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school
for
> > > > > several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> > > > > lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> > > > > hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to
go
> > > > > to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get
her
> > > > > there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my
education
> > > > > and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went
to
> > > > > the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> > > > > different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time
he
> > > > > made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank
account
> > > > > and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the
child.
> > > > > The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> > > > > increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> > > > > lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would
allow
> > > > > with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a
car,
> > > > > don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your
children
> > > > > live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or
anything
> > > > > for the common living area that the children also enjoy those
things?
> > > > > I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> > > > > emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't
contact
> > > > > her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see
her
> > > > > and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the
car
> > > > > and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> > > > > child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan
or
> > > > > NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced
in
> > > > > any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his
child
> > > > > why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and
then, I
> > > > > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do
and if
> > > > > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month
and
> > > > > buy myself something, then so be it!
> > > > >
> > > > > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> > > > >...
> > > > > > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money
from
> > CS,
> > > > > > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with
receipts,
> > > > showing
> > > > > > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of
the
> > money
> > > > for
> > > > > > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another
> > revenue
> > > > stream
> > > > > > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we
> > 'agreed' to
> > > > 500
> > > > > > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500
more. I
> > put
> > > > 100
> > > > > > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex
got
> > > > wise,
> > > > > > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a
good
> > > > parent,
> > > > > > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to
> > them?
> > > > No.
> > > > > > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she
buy?
> > A
> > > > 2
> > > > > > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends
the
> > money
> > > > on,
> > > > > > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended)
for
> > the
> > > > > > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Test" > wrote in message
> > > > > >
ble.rogers.com...
> > > > > > > So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now
> > beginning
> > > > to
> > > > see
> > > > > > > where that money goes:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children
(2)
> > > > > > > - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> > > > > > > - new mini-van
> > > > > > > - new house
> > > > > > > - trips
> > > > > > > - other non-kid things
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > And surprisingly there is no money for the children's
education
> > plan,
> > > > day
> > > > > > > care, clothes, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

Tiffany
August 10th 03, 04:30 PM
Joy B > wrote in message
om...
> Look, I'm sorry for my original attitude. I am angry with my ex
> because as my daughter grows older she asks more and more about why
> her father doesn't see her. I can honestly tell you that his reasons
> have nothing to do with money. I can also say that if he did pitch in
> on the whole co-parenting thing, I wouldn't have such an attitude
> about the money. He NEVER sees her. I don't mean just rarely, I mean
> NEVER. A few years ago it was rarely and just tapered off. I hurt for
> my daughter because I know that she hurts. There is nothing I can do
> about it but I can make him help out so that she doesn't suffer in
> other ways. If I'm wrong for that well I'm sorry but I really feel it
> is best for my CHILD. She is the driving factor in everything I do.
> She has a birthday coming up and I'm so afraid he won't even send a
> card. If he doesn't that is when I will break down and call him and
> I'm afraid it won't be very nice. If anyone has any suggestions I
> would appreciate it but you will never be able to convince me that I'm
> wrong for collecting CS. If I didn't have it, I certainly couldn't
> afford everything that I do have for my daughter. I would agree to an
> adjustment if he would just be a dad. I mean come on, he lives 20
> minutes away. There is no excuse. As far as what it costs to raise a
> child, it varies for everyone. My daughter has allergies and asthma,
> that's anywhere from $40-$60 per month in medication alone. The
> savings, the college fund. The activities alone cost $90 per week.
> Should I take all of the extra stuff away from her and give that money
> back to her dad? No. She should have the option to do these things
> just as she would if he and I were still together. So, yes there are
> bad CP's out there but should all CP's be lumped together as well? I
> don't think so, just as each NCP should be classified seperately. By
> all means, if a man spends time with his kids and is a part of their
> lives, he should get some credit for that in the consideration
> process.


Don't you think that going after him for more money will put a bigger rift
between you and him and make it more unlikely that he will visit? You really
should be content with what you do get now. Some of us get nothing.
Regardless, you are wanting more money for the wrong reasons. Rethink it
before you continue.

T

gini52
August 10th 03, 06:20 PM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> Look, I'm sorry for my original attitude. I am angry with my ex
> because as my daughter grows older she asks more and more about why
> her father doesn't see her. I can honestly tell you that his reasons
> have nothing to do with money. I can also say that if he did pitch in
> on the whole co-parenting thing, I wouldn't have such an attitude
> about the money. He NEVER sees her. I don't mean just rarely, I mean
> NEVER.
>A few years ago it was rarely and just tapered off. I hurt for
> my daughter because I know that she hurts. There is nothing I can do
> about it but I can make him help out so that she doesn't suffer in
> other ways. If I'm wrong for that well I'm sorry but I really feel it
> is best for my CHILD. She is the driving factor in everything I do.
> She has a birthday coming up and I'm so afraid he won't even send a
> card. If he doesn't that is when I will break down and call him and
> I'm afraid it won't be very nice.
===
That might make you feel better but will do nothing to help your daughter.
If that is your goal, perhaps you should re-think that approach. How about
calling him
ahead of time and nicely urging him to send her a card? You can be
pro-active rather than re-active.
If he has just been ordered to pay all that support, it will be more
difficult than ever to
foster a relationship between the two of them. It sounds like your daughter
would much rather have him than the money
but you are using the money to punish him which only makes things worse.
(More Below)
===
If anyone has any suggestions I
> would appreciate it but you will never be able to convince me that I'm
> wrong for collecting CS. If I didn't have it, I certainly couldn't
> afford everything that I do have for my daughter. I would agree to an
> adjustment if he would just be a dad. I mean come on, he lives 20
> minutes away. There is no excuse.
===
There is an excuse --You left him against his will and took his daughter.
So, he is punishing you by staying away and you are punishing him by
demanding more money. In this case, neither you nor your ex has your
daughter's best
interest driving your actions. It is all about you and him. Has it ever
occured to you
that you are making your daughter's childhood memories and those memories
are all about
the games between you and her father?
(More)
===
>As far as what it costs to raise a
> child, it varies for everyone.
==
Of course it does--It varies by an individual's money managing skills,
priorities and whether one is living above/at their means. My husband's ex
complained that she
couldn't survive on a net income of 48k per year yet we had to survive on
half that due to the
14k+ child support we were paying.
(More)
==
>My daughter has allergies and asthma,
> that's anywhere from $40-$60 per month in medication alone.
==
You have no health insurance? No matter, $40-60 for medicine is hardly
outrageous.
There are many kids on meds *a lot* more expensive than that.
(More)
===
>The
> savings, the college fund. The activities alone cost $90 per week.
==
Activities alone cost $90. a week?? Well, there's part of your problem.
You obviously can't afford that much for activities and need to cut back.
(More)
==
> Should I take all of the extra stuff away from her and give that money
> back to her dad? No. She should have the option to do these things
> just as she would if he and I were still together.
==
Why?? You are the one who left the marriage! Did you really expect that
you could have your cake and eat it too? Did you expect that your daughter
wouldn't be at an economic and emotional disadvantage if you tore the family
apart?
What were you thinking?? You know, it seems to me that all you have really
had driving
your actions is your own interest and are attempting to use your daughter as
your cover.
You did *none* of this for your daughter. If her interests were driving your
actions, she would still have her
family intact. You broke it up and now chastize *him* for not pretending it
didn't happen. And,
don't think I'm simply being judgmental--I am speaking from experience. I
left my first husband when my
older boys were about 10/11 years old. I moved a mile away so the boys could
still have constant access to both parents.
I refused to have the lawyer write custody and child support into the
decree because I don't believe divorce should
render kids as divisible property and my kids went back and forth at will. I
remained on good terms with their dad and still am.
But, you know what? Even with all that, my kids define the hardest part of
their childhood as the divorce. Unless there are extreme circumstances
(which I didn't hear from you) there is no way to do it in the child's best
interest. Like me, you made a decision that was not in anyone's best
interest but yours--and the consequences are yours. It is simply
unreasonable to expect your ex and your daughter to carry the burdon of your
decision, yet, that is exactly what you are doing. Hopefully, you will step
back, catch your breath and regroup so that you and your ex quit playing
games with each other at your daughter's expense. Maybe he won't respond as
you think he should but that is one of *your* consequences for leaving the
marriage
so it is up to *you* to compensate your daughter.
==
==

teachrmama
August 10th 03, 10:12 PM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> Look, I'm sorry for my original attitude. I am angry with my ex
> because as my daughter grows older she asks more and more about why
> her father doesn't see her. I can honestly tell you that his reasons
> have nothing to do with money. I can also say that if he did pitch in
> on the whole co-parenting thing, I wouldn't have such an attitude
> about the money. He NEVER sees her. I don't mean just rarely, I mean
> NEVER. A few years ago it was rarely and just tapered off. I hurt for
> my daughter because I know that she hurts. There is nothing I can do
> about it but I can make him help out so that she doesn't suffer in
> other ways. If I'm wrong for that well I'm sorry but I really feel it
> is best for my CHILD. She is the driving factor in everything I do.
> She has a birthday coming up and I'm so afraid he won't even send a
> card. If he doesn't that is when I will break down and call him and
> I'm afraid it won't be very nice. If anyone has any suggestions I
> would appreciate it but you will never be able to convince me that I'm
> wrong for collecting CS. If I didn't have it, I certainly couldn't
> afford everything that I do have for my daughter. I would agree to an
> adjustment if he would just be a dad. I mean come on, he lives 20
> minutes away. There is no excuse. As far as what it costs to raise a
> child, it varies for everyone. My daughter has allergies and asthma,
> that's anywhere from $40-$60 per month in medication alone. The
> savings, the college fund. The activities alone cost $90 per week.
> Should I take all of the extra stuff away from her and give that money
> back to her dad? No. **She should have the option to do these things
> just as she would if he and I were still together.**

I don't understand this statement, Joy. How on earth do you think that
things can be maintained financially "just the same as if" the divorce had
never happened? Do you really think that 2 households (yours and his) cost
the same amount as the household you shared together? Even though there are
now 2 mortgages, 2 electric bills, etc? Why would you, then, think that
your daughter's activities should be maintained at the same level as you
*think* they would have been, had you not divorced him?

My husband found out a couple of years ago that he was the father of a 13
year old girl that he had never known about. He now pays child support, and
has arrearages to pay, too. We have only met the child once because she
lives in another state. This took quite a chunk of change out of our
household budget, and our 2 girls lost out on some activities that they may
have been able to do. Now, Joy, do you think the mother of this young lady
should be able to say "I want my daughter to be able to do $90 worth of
activities per week, because her father never sees her and, on the salary he
makes now, she would be able to do those activities if he and I were
together, and his wife and children weren't in the picture"?

So, yes there are
> bad CP's out there but should all CP's be lumped together as well? I
> don't think so, just as each NCP should be classified seperately. By
> all means, if a man spends time with his kids and is a part of their
> lives, he should get some credit for that in the consideration
> process.

So if your ex stepped up to the plate now and said "I want 50/50 custody,"
would you drop all demand for child support?


> "gini52" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Please read the reponses to the posts from the other members of your
> > > lynch mob.
> > ===
> > This is not a lynch mob--It is a group of folks trying to impress upon
you
> > that
> > child support has more than one perspective. Many CPs are very used to
> > hearing how much
> > "they" are owed for the child that CS, no matter how large the amount,
> > seems a divine right
> > simply by virtue of being the parent. In your first post, you portrayed
this
> > attitude. You didn't
> > stand back until you were challenged to look at it from an NCP's
> > perspective. Then you changed
> > your attitude. I do respect you for that and for making sure your
daughter's
> > present and future
> > needs are met. But, you did first state that you were fighting for more
> > support and that you would spend the support how you wished and "so be
it."
> > Perhaps, you need a fresh read of your original post and see how it
sounded.
> > Many CPs come in here spouting how much they are owed and leave or
become
> > very hostile when their attitude is challenged. You didn't leave and
only
> > became a little hostile ;-)
> > And, I am very aware what it costs to raise a child and it is nowhere
near
> > 850 a month. And remember,
> > the 850. is only the NCP's portion of what the government is assuming.
So,
> > if you add your
> > ex's CS with your contribution, the money has gone well beyond
supporting
> > the child. I have been an NCP, CP, stepmom, adoptive mom to a collective
six
> > kids. According to the CS guidelines in our controlling jurisdiction, my
> > stepkids
> > (now grown) had a "support need" of over 2000. a month and our share was
> > 1200. This clearly puts children of divorce in a preferred status over
> > children in intact familes (whose parents are under no obligation to
provide
> > their children with "lifestyle" support). This has been a financial
crisis
> > to many NCPs and their subsequent families (whose needs are frequently
> > ignored by the guidelines) and the folks here have gathered together to
> > discuss these issues, that are largely ignored and/or denied by
legislatures
> > and courts. Now, here's the kicker--The states did not raise the child
> > support to lifestyle awards for the benefit of the children--If they
did,
> > they would require some evidence that the money is spent on the kids.
> > Rather, they did it because the federal government told them that their
> > grant money would be tied to their child support collections. The
government
> > has made our children pawns in the grab for federal dollars and
alienated
> > NCPs from their children in the wake. They have relegated fathers to the
> > position of walking wallets and ignored the child's need to have both
> > parents actively involved in their lives by refusing to enforce custody
and
> > co-parenting arrangements with the same vigor as collecting money. And,
I do
> > recognize that there are NCPs (fathers and mothers) who, unfortunately,
> > would rather not be involved with their children but they still should
not
> > be required to fund an illusionary lifestyle.
> > ===
> > ===

Chris Owens
August 10th 03, 11:53 PM
Bob Whiteside wrote:
>
> Good points Gini. One of the key questions that no one seems to be able to
> answer is "Why does it cost more to raise a child of divorce than a child in
> an intact family?"

It doesn't. What does happen in divorce is that many of the
hidden costs of raising children become explicit. In an intact
family, for example, the cost of expenses such as utilities and
vehicle usage are not apportioned based on child vs adult cost,
despite the fact that a significant amount of these expenses are
directly the result of children in the family. Adding two
children to my family, for example, just about doubled my
expenses for power and water, and more than doubled the amount of
non-business mileage that was being put on my vehicle.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Joy B
August 11th 03, 01:25 PM
No, I am content with what I get now. The CS ws raised several years
ago. I'm not pursuing a case currently. I don't need any more money.
I'm not some money grubbing opportunist. He actually started to have a
relationship with her after the settlement. It was about 2 years ago
he started making a little effort. Then he ramarried and ALL contact
stopped. He doesn't even speak to his own mother anymore.
"Tiffany" > wrote in message >...
> Joy B > wrote in message
> om...
> > Look, I'm sorry for my original attitude. I am angry with my ex
> > because as my daughter grows older she asks more and more about why
> > her father doesn't see her. I can honestly tell you that his reasons
> > have nothing to do with money. I can also say that if he did pitch in
> > on the whole co-parenting thing, I wouldn't have such an attitude
> > about the money. He NEVER sees her. I don't mean just rarely, I mean
> > NEVER. A few years ago it was rarely and just tapered off. I hurt for
> > my daughter because I know that she hurts. There is nothing I can do
> > about it but I can make him help out so that she doesn't suffer in
> > other ways. If I'm wrong for that well I'm sorry but I really feel it
> > is best for my CHILD. She is the driving factor in everything I do.
> > She has a birthday coming up and I'm so afraid he won't even send a
> > card. If he doesn't that is when I will break down and call him and
> > I'm afraid it won't be very nice. If anyone has any suggestions I
> > would appreciate it but you will never be able to convince me that I'm
> > wrong for collecting CS. If I didn't have it, I certainly couldn't
> > afford everything that I do have for my daughter. I would agree to an
> > adjustment if he would just be a dad. I mean come on, he lives 20
> > minutes away. There is no excuse. As far as what it costs to raise a
> > child, it varies for everyone. My daughter has allergies and asthma,
> > that's anywhere from $40-$60 per month in medication alone. The
> > savings, the college fund. The activities alone cost $90 per week.
> > Should I take all of the extra stuff away from her and give that money
> > back to her dad? No. She should have the option to do these things
> > just as she would if he and I were still together. So, yes there are
> > bad CP's out there but should all CP's be lumped together as well? I
> > don't think so, just as each NCP should be classified seperately. By
> > all means, if a man spends time with his kids and is a part of their
> > lives, he should get some credit for that in the consideration
> > process.
>
>
> Don't you think that going after him for more money will put a bigger rift
> between you and him and make it more unlikely that he will visit? You really
> should be content with what you do get now. Some of us get nothing.
> Regardless, you are wanting more money for the wrong reasons. Rethink it
> before you continue.
>
> T

teachrmama
August 12th 03, 12:56 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> I'M NOT BITCHING!!!! My complaint is that he NEVER sees her!!!! How do
> my words get so twisted in this group? Originally I posted because it
> seems the majority of opinions in this group are that the CP's don't
> deserve any help raising their children financially,

The *majority* think that CPs don't deserve any help financially? Which
particular posters have said that, Joy? There actually are a couple of
them, but I have not seen them recently. I see NCPs complaining that they
pay a lifestyle support amount to the CP, but the fact that they have the
children for a percentage of the time is not taken into consideration. The
NCP's costs of maintaining a home large enough to have room for the child is
not recognized, but the CP's costs for doing the same are. I've seen NCPs
post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
to complain about? I've seen NCPs post about being forced to pay child
support out of an imputed income, rather than the income they actually earn.
But, other than a couple of posters, I have not seen NCPs posting that they
didn't think they should pay any child support at all.

and if it's the
> only help we can get, they accuse us of using money to punish the NCP.

Child support is the only help you can get? Help for what? To spend $90 per
week on extra activities for your child? Not for necessities, but for extra
activities. Ask some of the posters here if they have even $90 a month to
spend on extra activities. Your situation just doesn't look like you're
living in great want, Joy.


> My posts have not been about not getting enough, they have been about
> defending what I do get and how it is spent. By no means am I
> complaining about the amount, just defending it.

Why do you feel the need to defend it? You are talking to people who have
had the ability to take their children out for dinner and a movie stripped
away from them by the very system that enforces your child's right to have
$90 per week in extra activities. You seem so focused on what you do with
your CS money, that you are not comprehending where so many folks here are
coming from!

I'm terribly sorry
> for your son having such a deadbeat!!!
> (mary Adrian) wrote in message
>...
> > You're bitching about getting 850 a month. Try 18.43 a week from a man
> > who earns 65000+. A man who only saw his son once. The same man who
> > filed bankruptcy before the courts could orer a higer amount. When my
> > son turned 18 we got one more check the day after his birthday. My son
> > asked me if he could do whatever he wanted with the check I told him he
> > could. He found his fathers address on the net, he wiped his ass on the
> > check and returned it to him enclosed in a Father's Day card that said
> > Thanks for nothing Dumb ****! So quit complaining and live with it! Mary

Kenneth S.
August 12th 03, 03:02 AM
Teachrmama:

I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying. However, I think
you need to take one step back from what you say below and look at the
root cause.

In regard to the background to what you say below, you need to ask
questions like the following:

(1) Why was attention focused on the tiny minority of nonpaying rich
fathers, and why did everyone ignore the fact that the vast majority of
nonpaying fathers are impoverished, incompetent men who can hardly even
support themselves?

(2) Why is no attention paid to the fact that the best anti-poverty
program is two-parent families (i.e. families where the father is not
merely paying money to the mother, but is actually in the family, and
exercising his proper role as a father).

(3) Why was there no outcry at the outrageous decision in federal
legislation about ten years ago to impose CS withholding on all fathers,
regardless of whether or not they were behind on paying?

There are many, many other similar questions that could be raised, but
I don't want to bore everyone. And, as I said before, I don't think
there is a one simple answer to the question of why CS arrangements are
the way they are in the U.S.

However, if we must have one answer, the single theory that most
closely fits, and provides explanations of most features of the system,
is that the money is received by women (the politically correct sex) and
paid by men (the sex that has been saddled with the villain role). The
questions above never were raised because there was no male special
interest group to raise them. These questions still aren't on the
political agenda.

My objection to your "handful of bad apples" explanation is that it may
suggest there would have been some way of dealing with that problem in
isolation, and then things would have been fairer for all the other
fathers. However, things will NEVER be fairer for fathers so long as
they have no political clout in matters where their interests conflict
with those of mothers. Fathers are the official scapegoats, and it gets
taken out of their hide.

teachrmama wrote:
>
> You know that I more agree than disagree with your views on this, Kenneth.
> But what was the "smoking gun" that made it possible for the system to be
> put in place with no public outcry? It wasn't "We want women to have their
> children and be supported by men." It was the long list of poster-boy
> deadbeats that had not been caught and relieved of their money. "In the US
> today, deadbeats owe their children over $XX million dollars. And we are
> going after them!!" Unfortunately, as the system strengthened its grip on
> society, even men who were behind because they lost a job and could only
> make partial payments, or, like my husband, didn't even know they had a
> child and found themselves instantly in arrears, or were handed retroactive
> increases and found themselves in arrears found themselves branded with the
> deadbeat label. Then, when the federal bucks for collections kicked in,
> every NCP became the bad guy--even if they never missed a payment. But
> that's not how it started--that's what it has evolved into--and now it
> fights for its own survival at the cost of everyone who is touched by it.
> And those deadbeats who are the poster-boys for the need for the system?
> How many of them remain on the list year after year after year because they
> are never apprehended? The majority, I think--and the kind, caring NCPs pay
> a bigger and bigger price.
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Teachrmama:
> >
> > While I agree with much of what you say below, I think you are wrong to
> > attribute so much of the present oppressive nature of the "child
> > support" enforcement system in the U.S. to what you call the "behavior
> > of the few scummy ones" (noncustodial parents, that is).
> >
> > I think you get a far better understanding of what drives the present
> > system if you look at something else: the fact that virtually all
> > custodial parents (the recipients of "child support") are women and
> > virtually all those who have to pay it are men. For many years in the
> > U.S., men almost invariably have lost any battles where the interests of
> > the two sexes are in conflict -- as in this case. That is because there
> > is a feminist movement, but no significant "masculinist" movement, and
> > because (for a variety of reasons) individual men are unwilling to
> > defend their interests against encroachment by individual women.
> >
> > If you doubt this, look at the joint custody situation. It's clear
> > that joint custody is a very good way of ensuring that the money is paid
> > by fathers. So why, if ensuring payment is the prime objective, don't
> > we have more joint custody? The answer is that mothers don't want any
> > diminution in their power. That's also much of the reason why we have
> > the present CS arrangements, since one important element is that CS,
> > plus Draconian enforcement of it, makes it easier for mothers to
> > establish single parent families, and that contributes towards enhancing
> > women's power at the expense of the fathers of their children.
> >
> > I agree that there are several factors in the situation. However, the
> > MAJOR one is the political drive behind any moves to enlarge the options
> > available to women -- if necessary at the expense of men and children.
> > That's the dirty little secret behind all this kind of thing. It's
> > presented as being in the interests of children, but the interests of
> > children are best served by growing up in two-parent families, not
> > families from which the fathers have been expelled.
> >
> >
> >
> > teachrmama wrote:
> > >
> > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > So, Joy, do you go out and buy a fancy new car for yourself, go off
> on
> > > > > vacation, leaving your child at Grandma's, buy your new boyfriend a
> > > stereo
> > > > > system for his car--then tell your child that she needs to ask Dad
> for
> > > > > school clothes, because you don't have the money? Do you think it
> is
> > > fair
> > > > > for CP's to do that? I understand your situation and can see it
> from
> > > your
> > > > > perspective--can you step back and see the situation described above
> > > from
> > > > > the NCP's point of view?
> > > >
> > > > I can see the point of view and I agree with you. I have never bought
> > > > a new car. I always buy used to get the best value. I never buy a
> > > > sport car, I buy safe cars.The last vacation I went on without my
> > > > child was my honeymoon and I can tell you honestly that CS did not pay
> > > > for that. I never got enough money to enable me to stay home. I never
> > > > asked him or had my child ask him for extras.I worked 2 jobs, CS was
> > > > not and is not my only source of income and when I bought a gift for
> > > > my boyfriend I certainly didn't spend beyond my means. My point is, if
> > > > he couldn't and still can't pick up the phone to call and see how she
> > > > is or if she needs a dad to talk to or just to say hi, who is he to
> > > > question how she is being raised? He doesn't have any clue what it
> > > > takes to raise a child. When I remarried, I offered him to come and
> > > > meet my new husband and see what kind of environment she was living in
> > > > and he said it hurt HIM too much. What about his child. When he
> > > > remarried, I insisted on meeting the woman who would care for my child
> > > > if anything ever happened to me. She invites him to her birthday party
> > > > every year and he won't come. There have even been times when my
> > > > husband had to be out of town so he wouldn't have to meet him and he
> > > > still wouldn't come. Since everyone is so hyped about this receipt
> > > > thing, why not a compromise. Court ordered, 3 months, I guarantee that
> > > > would be enough (in my case) to prove the money goes nowhere else. I
> > > > just have a problem with having to do this for years on end. With
> > > > children the expense only goes up. I don't drink, I don't smoke, I
> > > > don't get my hair done, I've had the same pair of tennis shoes for 3
> > > > years, I don't use credit cards unless it's an unexpected car or home
> > > > repair and I buy my clothes at Wal-Mart. I do not waste the CS. It
> > > > goes where it is supposed to. I have a savings acct. for her, a
> > > > prepaid college fund, she takes piano, karate and art lessons and
> > > > everything she needs, I go out and get it. She knows her father helps
> > > > with the checks that come from him, what she doesn't know is why HE
> > > > isn't "there".
> > >
> > > Here's the problem, Joy. You are talking about YOU. I don't doubt that
> you
> > > are a great mother and use the CS for your daughter. But not all CPs do
> so.
> > > How do you propose that those CPs who are spending CS on themselves
> rather
> > > than their children be dealt with? Should they be stopped? How would
> the
> > > system do that?
> > >
> > > NCPs are weighed down with all sorts of requirements, just because they
> are
> > > NCPs. The majority have their paychecks garnished--not because they
> didn't
> > > pay, but because the CSE system in each state benefits for all CS
> > > collected--so these days everything goes through them so they can get
> the
> > > federal bucks. NCPs can lose their drivers and professional licenses if
> > > they hit a bad patch and lose their jobs for a while. Their houses can
> have
> > > liens placed on them. They can be required to find a job, even if it
> pays
> > > less and is not in their field--then be charged CS based on the
> > > higher-paying job that they lost. And all the while, the system will
> only
> > > enforce the child support--not the visitation. CPs rarely experience
> these
> > > things. And they have absolutely NO requirement to spend the $$ on the
> > > children. All they have to do is meet minimal care requirements, and
> the
> > > rest of the money is theirs.
> > >
> > > Basically, all the wonderful, caring NCPs out there are being punished
> by
> > > the behavior of the few scummy ones. If accountability for CS monies is
> > > mandated, the wonderful, caring CPs will be in the same boat as the
> > > wonderful, caring NCPs because of the few scummy ones. This idea isn't
> an
> > > attack on you--and it would certainly be an inconvenience for you. But
> it
> > > might go a long way toward helping a lot of children.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > I have an 11 year old child whom I raised on my own from the age
> of 1
> > > > > > 1/2- 3 1/2. At this time I met the man who is now my husband. My
> > > > > > child's father was not helping to support her in any way. I was
> > > > > > working 2 jobs, 1FT & 1PT. I still couldn't was struggling with
> coming
> > > > > > up with money for Christmas. Do you think that my child's father
> cared
> > > > > > enough to help out? No, the man I had known for less than a month
> took
> > > > > > me to the toy store and told me to get whatever I needed. When my
> > > > > > divorce finally went through (that's where my money was going at
> the
> > > > > > time) I got $350/mo from a man who was making $40,000 per year
> because
> > > > > > I couldn't afford to continue the battle over child support.
> During
> > > > > > all this time the NCP never called the child, never visited, never
> > > > > > wrote the child. Just showed up at his mother's house about 2-3
> times
> > > > > > per year when the child would happen to be there visiting. I
> remarried
> > > > > > when my child was 8 years old after working and going to school
> for
> > > > > > several years and dragging my poor child all the while her father
> > > > > > lived 20 minutes away and could've relieved us both of some of the
> > > > > > hectic days by picking her up from school so she wouldn't have to
> go
> > > > > > to a sitter at night and I wouldn't have to rush from work to get
> her
> > > > > > there before I had to be at school. When I had finished my
> education
> > > > > > and had a good job I took my ex to court for more CS. When we went
> to
> > > > > > the hearing he told the judge that he wanted to know what was
> > > > > > different that warranted me getting more money (BTW at this time
> he
> > > > > > made $65,000/yr). He also wanted me to open a seperate bank
> account
> > > > > > and provide receipts for everything that I purchased for the
> child.
> > > > > > The judge got very angry and explained to him that if his income
> > > > > > increased, and his lifestyle was better so should his childs
> > > > > > lifestyle. I was awarded the maximum amount that the state would
> allow
> > > > > > with our incomes. In saying this, if the CP goes out and buys a
> car,
> > > > > > don't your children ride in that car? a new house, don't your
> children
> > > > > > live there? Don't you think that when the CP buys a new TV or
> anything
> > > > > > for the common living area that the children also enjoy those
> things?
> > > > > > I spent so many years supporting my child financially,
> > > > > > emotionally(making excuses for her father and why he didn't
> contact
> > > > > > her) and physically, with no help from him. He still does not see
> her
> > > > > > and I don't get a day off, or a night off. I can't just hop in the
> car
> > > > > > and go out with other adults, I have to hire someone to watch my
> > > > > > child. I am on my job 24 hours a day and he can fly off to Japan
> or
> > > > > > NYC or wherever he feels like without having to be inconvenienced
> in
> > > > > > any way. Not to mention that he doesn't have to explain to his
> child
> > > > > > why he doesn't care enough to pick up the phone every now and
> then, I
> > > > > > do. Does anyone else think that that's worth $850/mo. I sure do
> and if
> > > > > > I want to take a few dollars of the money that he sends each month
> and
> > > > > > buy myself something, then so be it!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Simpledog" > wrote in message
> > > > > >...
> > > > > > > I think, at a minimum, if the custodial parent is getting money
> from
> > > CS,
> > > > > > > then she/he should have to file some sort of form, with
> receipts,
> > > > > showing
> > > > > > > how that money was spent. Obviously most parents use most of
> the
> > > money
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > the kids most of the time, but in the end, CS is just another
> > > revenue
> > > > > stream
> > > > > > > from one person, to the other. I'm in a situation where we
> > > 'agreed' to
> > > > > 500
> > > > > > > a month, but the California state guidelines were about 500
> more. I
> > > put
> > > > > 100
> > > > > > > away for college, 50 for a car, etc. Many things. Now, my ex
> got
> > > > > wise,
> > > > > > > and went to the county and got an 'adjustment'. Now she is a
> good
> > > > > parent,
> > > > > > > but, do I think the entire 1100 bucks I send to her is going to
> > > them?
> > > > > No.
> > > > > > > Why? Because right after she got the extra money, what did she
> buy?
> > > A
> > > > > 2
> > > > > > > door Honda Accord Coupe. And a new home.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There is NO accountability of what the custodial party spends
> the
> > > money
> > > > > on,
> > > > > > > while there is a juggernaut system of checks (no pun intended)
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > > non-custodial parent, to ensure compliance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Test" > wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> ble.rogers.com...
> > > > > > > > So I just started to pay CS (over $1000 per month). I am now
> > > beginning
> > > > > to
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > > where that money goes:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > - about $500 to feed and provide necistites to the children
> (2)
> > > > > > > > - ex's lawyer fees to take me to court
> > > > > > > > - new mini-van
> > > > > > > > - new house
> > > > > > > > - trips
> > > > > > > > - other non-kid things
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And surprisingly there is no money for the children's
> education
> > > plan,
> > > > > day
> > > > > > > > care, clothes, etc.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Great system (in Canada anyway)... sheesh.

Joy B
August 12th 03, 11:06 AM
you said: You seem so focused on what you do with
your CS money, that you are not comprehending where so many folks here
are
coming from!

That's because I have been attacked several times over the past few
days about possibly not spending the money on my child so I have had
to explain what I do with the CS money. I know people get screwed by
the system. Those are the people who are paying child support and
still helping to raise their child along with a new family. That is
not my situation. I have had people criticize me for receiving the
amount that I receive because a parent shouldn't have to take from his
new family to feed his old family. I agree with you if the situation
is so that it makes the new family suffer. In my case, he has no new
children. He went out and bought a house and a brand new sports car
AFTER the settlement four years ago. Now, I am not complaining about
that, before someone accuses me of complaining. I am giving an example
of how much it impacted his budget. He has no children besides the one
we have together. He has a new wife but she was not in the picture at
the time. There will be no more children because she is older and no
longer has the ability to have children.
you wrote: Child support is the only help you can get? Help for what?
Help raising my child. As far as some people out there not even having
$90 a month to spend on activities, I know that but if it was
available to them don't you think they would. I am not going to carry
100% of the load, and feel guilty that a man who is perfectly capable
of it has to support his child. As far as the activities, maybe if she
got to spend some time with her father she wouldn't have so much free
time for activities. When I say 100% I am not exagerrating. He doesn't
even so much as call her to see how her first day of school was. He
won't come to any school events because my "new husband might be
there." Give me a break. OK so is he going to skip her wedding too? I
guarantee my husband and I will both be there because we have raised
her, not her father, not even so much as putting in an opinion on how
he feels she should be raised. So if you are a father who is involved
in your child's life, by all means, you deserve BIG CREDIT on CS. I
have not argued that point at all. I'm talking about my situation
where I am 100% THE parent who does it all. The very LEAST he can do
is help pay for things. I love my daughter, will walk to the ends of
the earth for her. I'm sorry to say that I can't say the same about
her father.
"teachrmama" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > I'M NOT BITCHING!!!! My complaint is that he NEVER sees her!!!! How do
> > my words get so twisted in this group? Originally I posted because it
> > seems the majority of opinions in this group are that the CP's don't
> > deserve any help raising their children financially,
>
> The *majority* think that CPs don't deserve any help financially? Which
> particular posters have said that, Joy? There actually are a couple of
> them, but I have not seen them recently. I see NCPs complaining that they
> pay a lifestyle support amount to the CP, but the fact that they have the
> children for a percentage of the time is not taken into consideration. The
> NCP's costs of maintaining a home large enough to have room for the child is
> not recognized, but the CP's costs for doing the same are. I've seen NCPs
> post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
> the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
> forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
> lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
> to complain about? I've seen NCPs post about being forced to pay child
> support out of an imputed income, rather than the income they actually earn.
> But, other than a couple of posters, I have not seen NCPs posting that they
> didn't think they should pay any child support at all.
>
> and if it's the
> > only help we can get, they accuse us of using money to punish the NCP.
>
> Child support is the only help you can get? Help for what? To spend $90 per
> week on extra activities for your child? Not for necessities, but for extra
> activities. Ask some of the posters here if they have even $90 a month to
> spend on extra activities. Your situation just doesn't look like you're
> living in great want, Joy.
>
>
> > My posts have not been about not getting enough, they have been about
> > defending what I do get and how it is spent. By no means am I
> > complaining about the amount, just defending it.
>
> Why do you feel the need to defend it? You are talking to people who have
> had the ability to take their children out for dinner and a movie stripped
> away from them by the very system that enforces your child's right to have
> $90 per week in extra activities. You seem so focused on what you do with
> your CS money, that you are not comprehending where so many folks here are
> coming from!
>
> I'm terribly sorry
> > for your son having such a deadbeat!!!
> > (mary Adrian) wrote in message
> >...
> > > You're bitching about getting 850 a month. Try 18.43 a week from a man
> > > who earns 65000+. A man who only saw his son once. The same man who
> > > filed bankruptcy before the courts could orer a higer amount. When my
> > > son turned 18 we got one more check the day after his birthday. My son
> > > asked me if he could do whatever he wanted with the check I told him he
> > > could. He found his fathers address on the net, he wiped his ass on the
> > > check and returned it to him enclosed in a Father's Day card that said
> > > Thanks for nothing Dumb ****! So quit complaining and live with it! Mary

Virginia
August 12th 03, 03:53 PM
teachrmama wrote:
> I've seen NCPs
> post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
> the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
> forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
> lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
> to complain about?

What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
course).

Virginia
August 12th 03, 08:05 PM
So Am I hence the coment to begin with.

teachrmama wrote:
> "Virginia" > wrote in message
> t...
>
>>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>>I've seen NCPs
>>>post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even
>
> considered by
>
>>>the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children
>
> are
>
>>>forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
>>>lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be
>
> something
>
>>>to complain about?
>>
>>What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
>>$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
>>live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
>>loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
>>while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
>>in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
>>still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
>>they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
>>course).
>
>
> And that is precisely the problem with the system. It does not deal with
> issues such as the one you mention above because there is no money in it for
> "they system". It only goes after those who could possibly increase the
> money funneling through it, and doesn't mind destroying them to get that
> money. Within the system, there are NCPs and subsequent families who are
> being hurt, but there are also CPS who are being hurt--not to mention the
> children who are supposed to be the focus of the entire system!! The system
> takes care of the system--and whether you are one of those who are hurt or
> helped by it is of no concern to the system. (I am feeling quite cynical
> this morning.)
>
>

Kenneth S.
August 13th 03, 02:02 AM
Virginia wrote:
>
> teachrmama wrote:
> > I've seen NCPs
> > post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
> > the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
> > forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
> > lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
> > to complain about?
>
> What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
> $60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
> live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
> loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
> while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
> in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
> still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
> they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
> course).

The above principles form the basis of child support arrangements in
nearly all U.S. states, as I understand it. Men who are paying money to
their former wives are supposed to conclude that they can't afford to
have new families until they've got their former wives off their
payrolls -- which may well be a matter of decades.

However, in the great majority of cases, the reason why these men are
not with their first families is that their first wives kicked them
out. So the first wives are supposed to be able, not just to kick out
their husbands, and have them continue to pay the bills, but also to
prevent these men from having new families.

Nothing could better illustrate the dirty little secret about so-called
"child support" in the U.S. It's not first and foremost about the needs
of children. The primary consideration is the empowerment of women.

Tracy
August 13th 03, 06:48 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> you said: You seem so focused on what you do with
> your CS money, that you are not comprehending where so many folks here
> are
> coming from!
>
> That's because I have been attacked several times over the past few


Attacked? By whom? Joy, you came in here asking a basic question "Does
anyone else think that
that's worth $850/mo", and you received answers. No one has attacked you.
I haven't seen any attacks to you, just questions and comments pertaining to
what you've written in this group.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Virginia
August 13th 03, 05:46 PM
did you note the $60 a month. If one can't afford $60 they really can't
afford to have any children (including those they've already had)

Kenneth S. wrote:
> Virginia wrote:
>
>>teachrmama wrote:
>>
>>>I've seen NCPs
>>>post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
>>>the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
>>>forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
>>>lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
>>>to complain about?
>>
>>What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
>>$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
>>live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
>>loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
>>while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
>>in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
>>still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
>>they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
>>course).
>
>
> The above principles form the basis of child support arrangements in
> nearly all U.S. states, as I understand it. Men who are paying money to
> their former wives are supposed to conclude that they can't afford to
> have new families until they've got their former wives off their
> payrolls -- which may well be a matter of decades.
>
> However, in the great majority of cases, the reason why these men are
> not with their first families is that their first wives kicked them
> out. So the first wives are supposed to be able, not just to kick out
> their husbands, and have them continue to pay the bills, but also to
> prevent these men from having new families.
>
> Nothing could better illustrate the dirty little secret about so-called
> "child support" in the U.S. It's not first and foremost about the needs
> of children. The primary consideration is the empowerment of women.

Rambler
August 13th 03, 07:50 PM
"Virginia" > wrote in message
t
> did you note the $60 a month. If one can't afford $60 they really
> can't
> afford to have any children (including those they've already had)

Disagree. I can't afford $60 a month, let alone $6 or $.60. I used to make
$200K a year, most of which she spent. Lost job, ex decided that was it as
I tried to start a new company, economy here sucks, long custody battle with
huge (well, to me, $75K is huge) legal expenses, the last part unpaid,
resulting in a bankruptcy order, loss of company . . . etc. etc. etc.

Could I afford the kids then? Sure. Now . . . hell, I am scraping stuff
together to make the daily international telephone calls to talk to them,
which, BTW, most of the time they are not around because the ex has them
"busy."

Kenneth S.
August 14th 03, 01:58 AM
Eh? What does $60 have to do with the point I made?

Despite the propaganda, the ultimate objective here is to empower women
-- where necessary, at the expense of men and children.



Virginia wrote:
>
> did you note the $60 a month. If one can't afford $60 they really can't
> afford to have any children (including those they've already had)
>
> Kenneth S. wrote:
> > Virginia wrote:
> >
> >>teachrmama wrote:
> >>
> >>>I've seen NCPs
> >>>post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
> >>>the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
> >>>forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
> >>>lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
> >>>to complain about?
> >>
> >>What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
> >>$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
> >>live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
> >>loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
> >>while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
> >>in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
> >>still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
> >>they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
> >>course).
> >
> >
> > The above principles form the basis of child support arrangements in
> > nearly all U.S. states, as I understand it. Men who are paying money to
> > their former wives are supposed to conclude that they can't afford to
> > have new families until they've got their former wives off their
> > payrolls -- which may well be a matter of decades.
> >
> > However, in the great majority of cases, the reason why these men are
> > not with their first families is that their first wives kicked them
> > out. So the first wives are supposed to be able, not just to kick out
> > their husbands, and have them continue to pay the bills, but also to
> > prevent these men from having new families.
> >
> > Nothing could better illustrate the dirty little secret about so-called
> > "child support" in the U.S. It's not first and foremost about the needs
> > of children. The primary consideration is the empowerment of women.

Joy B
August 14th 03, 02:21 AM
You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
suggestions?
Chris Owens > wrote in message >...
> Joy B wrote:
> >
> > I'M NOT BITCHING!!!! My complaint is that he NEVER sees her!!!!
>
> Joy, you can't change that. Really. My younger ward is now
> nineteen. In the sixteen years she's been living with me, her
> father has seen her exactly seven times. When she graduated from
> highschool last year, I invited him to attend, and offered to pay
> for all of his expenses. Nope; there was some big car show he
> needed to go to that weekend. [At least his parents managed to
> get it together to attend . . . a rare event in and of itself.]
>
> What do you do? Deal, hon. DO NOT denigrate the man to your
> child. [All I told Lexa was that her father couldn't come.]
> Don't criticize. Don't make excuses. Don't bitch where she can
> hear you. And love her as much as you are able; giving her at
> least one secure anchor in her life.
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Virginia
August 14th 03, 02:32 AM
the poin t was if one doesn't even have $60 they can not afford to raise
a child. You were talking about an entirely different group of people
those which have more than enough to support their children if they were
not paying CS, therefore your counter point had nothing to do witht he
origional point.

However, why is it subsequent children can increase the need for CS in
the eyes of the court for the CP but subsequent children have no affect
on behalf of NCP? It makes utterly no sense.

Kenneth S. wrote:
> Eh? What does $60 have to do with the point I made?
>
> Despite the propaganda, the ultimate objective here is to empower women
> -- where necessary, at the expense of men and children.
>
>
>
> Virginia wrote:
>
>>did you note the $60 a month. If one can't afford $60 they really can't
>>afford to have any children (including those they've already had)
>>
>>Kenneth S. wrote:
>>
>>>Virginia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>teachrmama wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I've seen NCPs
>>>>>post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
>>>>>the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
>>>>>forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
>>>>>lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
>>>>>to complain about?
>>>>
>>>>What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
>>>>$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
>>>>live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
>>>>loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
>>>>while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
>>>>in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
>>>>still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
>>>>they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
>>>>course).
>>>
>>>
>>> The above principles form the basis of child support arrangements in
>>>nearly all U.S. states, as I understand it. Men who are paying money to
>>>their former wives are supposed to conclude that they can't afford to
>>>have new families until they've got their former wives off their
>>>payrolls -- which may well be a matter of decades.
>>>
>>> However, in the great majority of cases, the reason why these men are
>>>not with their first families is that their first wives kicked them
>>>out. So the first wives are supposed to be able, not just to kick out
>>>their husbands, and have them continue to pay the bills, but also to
>>>prevent these men from having new families.
>>>
>>> Nothing could better illustrate the dirty little secret about so-called
>>>"child support" in the U.S. It's not first and foremost about the needs
>>>of children. The primary consideration is the empowerment of women.

gini52
August 14th 03, 03:01 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
m...
> You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
> I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
> with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
> she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
> Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
> Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
> slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
> He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
> guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
> He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
> the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
> day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
> suggestions?
==
Now, you are sounding controlling again. You are upset
that he didn't go *through you* to do something with his daughter (she *is*
his daughter, not just yours),
and claim you will have to have "WORDS" with him. OK, I'm gonna be
uncharacteristically
blunt here--Get over yourself!!! This isn't about YOU!! It is about your
daughter and her relationship with her father!
If she's having a slumber party, why can't she do something with her dad
earlier? She can just tell him about the party and they can arrange to do
something before that. What's the big deal? Sheesh! You really need to work
on getting out from between
your daughter and her dad or she will resent you eventually. Let it
go--enjoy your life. Let the two of them work out their relationship. If she
falls, pick her up and brush her off--let her navigate her own waters. She
is old enough and will find the balance. Whatever conclusions she draws
about him will be hers.
==
==

Kenneth S.
August 14th 03, 04:13 AM
You're incapable of seeing any point but your own, aren't you,
Virginia?

Nevertheless, I'll try just one more time to get the point over. From
a man's point of view, there's a problem about the principle that men
should first pay off the mothers of their first set of children, and
THEN decide whether they can afford to have a second set of children.
That problem is that it allows the mother of the first set of children
to control the father's behavior, possibly for several decades.

In the U.S. at the present time, about 70-75 percent of divorces are
initiated by wives over their husbands' objections. So giving primacy
to the first set of children is a way of telling women that not only can
they kick their husbands out, but they may ALSO be able to control their
husbands' post-divorce behavior and prevent them from having new
families.

No one says to women that, if they can't support themselves and the
children, they shouldn't seek divorces. And yet the principle is just
the same as telling divorced men that, if they can't afford to support
two families, they shouldn't have a second family until they have paid
off their first wives (by which time, since many men have to pay "child
support" for decades, they may be too old to realistically contemplate
having second families).

As for the CS system "making sense," there's no need for it to make
sense, and that's not a factor. All the CS system needs to do is give
mothers the best deal possible. There's no fathers movement with
political clout to act as a restraint on this tendency.


Virginia wrote:
>
> the poin t was if one doesn't even have $60 they can not afford to raise
> a child. You were talking about an entirely different group of people
> those which have more than enough to support their children if they were
> not paying CS, therefore your counter point had nothing to do witht he
> origional point.
>
> However, why is it subsequent children can increase the need for CS in
> the eyes of the court for the CP but subsequent children have no affect
> on behalf of NCP? It makes utterly no sense.
>
> Kenneth S. wrote:
> > Eh? What does $60 have to do with the point I made?
> >
> > Despite the propaganda, the ultimate objective here is to empower women
> > -- where necessary, at the expense of men and children.
> >
> >
> >
> > Virginia wrote:
> >
> >>did you note the $60 a month. If one can't afford $60 they really can't
> >>afford to have any children (including those they've already had)
> >>
> >>Kenneth S. wrote:
> >>
> >>>Virginia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>teachrmama wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>I've seen NCPs
> >>>>>post that the needs of their subsequent children are not even considered by
> >>>>>the courts--only the needs of the first children. Subsequent children are
> >>>>>forced to live at poverty levels so the first children can continue the
> >>>>>lifestyle they had before the divorce. Do you think that might be something
> >>>>>to complain about?
> >>>>
> >>>>What about when these men have children they can't even afford to pay
> >>>>$60 to a month (2 kids) and go out with a new wife and have 2 more and
> >>>>live off welfare. When a man who works and makes 20-30 K a year and
> >>>>loses a high percentage to CS and that forces his new wife to work FT
> >>>>while the ex sits on her ass at home (even though her kids are already
> >>>>in school) I can see a problem, however we have to keep in mind there
> >>>>still are irrisponsible people out there who continue having kids when
> >>>>they can't afford the ones they have. (this applies to both genders of
> >>>>course).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The above principles form the basis of child support arrangements in
> >>>nearly all U.S. states, as I understand it. Men who are paying money to
> >>>their former wives are supposed to conclude that they can't afford to
> >>>have new families until they've got their former wives off their
> >>>payrolls -- which may well be a matter of decades.
> >>>
> >>> However, in the great majority of cases, the reason why these men are
> >>>not with their first families is that their first wives kicked them
> >>>out. So the first wives are supposed to be able, not just to kick out
> >>>their husbands, and have them continue to pay the bills, but also to
> >>>prevent these men from having new families.
> >>>
> >>> Nothing could better illustrate the dirty little secret about so-called
> >>>"child support" in the U.S. It's not first and foremost about the needs
> >>>of children. The primary consideration is the empowerment of women.

Bob Whiteside
August 14th 03, 04:49 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
m...
> You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
> I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
> with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
> she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
> Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
> Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
> slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
> He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
> guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
> He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
> the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
> day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
> suggestions?

There's something missing here. Why isn't your daughter having regularly
scheduled visitation times with her father? Part the stress in the birthday
meeting may be because they have lost regular contact with each other. Why
don't you suggest your daughter have a sleepover with her father the night
before the birthday sleepover? That way they could spend the night before
and the day of the sleepover together. Let the father know you want to be
flexible and help him set up whatever visitation works for him for the
birthday, and ongoing visitations, to ensure a better long term
father/daughter relationship. Let him know that is what his daughter wants.

gini52
August 14th 03, 08:20 PM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> When I say he should go through me it's because he hasn't been in her
> life for so many years, our lives just go on as planned. Did he think
> that there was nothing planned? So for him to tell her I want to do
> this on this day without checking what might be planned is unfair to
> HER! I have ALREADY suggested through e-mail that they do something
> after her friends leave but I have heard nothing yet, still early
> though. I'm sorry but she may be old enough to deal with her father
> herself but when it is my job to make plans for parties and other
> things, I have to be involved in this decision making process. One
> other concern that I have is his drinking. The last time he took her
> out to dinner he did a couple of shots in front of my daughter and
> then got in the car with her. I never said anything because he never
> called to see her again. I don't drink and drive, and I don't want him
> doing it, especially with my child in the car. What do I say without
> being too "controlling"? Surely you agree with me about thid being a
> safety issue?
> ==
I do and you certainly should let him know that it won't be tolerated. You
said he "got in the car with her"--Was he driving or was his wife driving?
About the birthday matter, however, I think you could be more accomodating
and I realize that there are
folks here who disagree with me. But, when I divorced my ex, I realized that
*I* made the choice, not him and not my sons, so it was up to me to be the
more flexible with their relationship. That resulted in the least stress for
the kids and that was my ultimate goal. I believe that when someone is truly
driven by the best interest of the child, they must be honest with
themselves when the child's interest conflicts with the parent's *wants.* In
this case, you *want* to have a say on how her dad manages his relationship
with her--ie: he should do this, and this, and this to be an acceptable
father. You then are transferring *your* definition of "good father" in the
middle of their relationship. Joy, many parents, including those in intact
families struggle with how the other parent handles the parent/child
relationship. In my first marriage, I was quilty of over-parenting, while I
believed my ex under-parented. The reality was that while I was protecting
them from everything harmful, he was letting them take risks in their
development. While I was telling them to stay out of the woods and away from
the mountain because I didn't want them to get lost or fall, he was taking
them into the woods and teaching them how to not get lost or fall. I hated
it and was worried sick until they got back. But, that was my problem--the
boys needed to learn those things. Kids need *both* parents to offset each
parent's shortcomings. The father has just as much right to parent his child
as the mother does--whether the mother approves of the parenting skills or
not. Absent abuse or neglect, the mother (or CP) has no more dibs on the
child than the father does. So, my opinion is that you are attempting to
manipulate their relationship and that is more damaging to your daughter
than her taking a few hours out of her birthday and spending them with her
dad--regardless, of whether it is convenient to you and your plans as in
"when it is my job to make plans for parties and other
things, I have to be involved in this decision making process." You have to
be involved in her party plans, *not* in what your daughter and her dad do
outside that time. That is controlling. That you feel you have a right to
this control is very apparant in your constant reference to "my daughter"
when, in fact you should be referencing "our daughter." Try it-- it might
help you understand my point.
==
==

> "gini52" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
> > > I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
> > > with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
> > > she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
> > > Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
> > > Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
> > > slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
> > > He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
> > > guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
> > > He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
> > > the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
> > > day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
> > > suggestions?
> > ==
> > Now, you are sounding controlling again. You are upset
> > that he didn't go *through you* to do something with his daughter (she
*is*
> > his daughter, not just yours),
> > and claim you will have to have "WORDS" with him. OK, I'm gonna be
> > uncharacteristically
> > blunt here--Get over yourself!!! This isn't about YOU!! It is about your
> > daughter and her relationship with her father!
> > If she's having a slumber party, why can't she do something with her dad
> > earlier? She can just tell him about the party and they can arrange to
do
> > something before that. What's the big deal? Sheesh! You really need to
work
> > on getting out from between
> > your daughter and her dad or she will resent you eventually. Let it
> > go--enjoy your life. Let the two of them work out their relationship. If
she
> > falls, pick her up and brush her off--let her navigate her own waters.
She
> > is old enough and will find the balance. Whatever conclusions she draws
> > about him will be hers.
> > ==
> > ==

teachrmama
August 15th 03, 06:40 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> When I say he should go through me it's because he hasn't been in her
> life for so many years, our lives just go on as planned. Did he think
> that there was nothing planned? So for him to tell her I want to do
> this on this day without checking what might be planned is unfair to
> HER! I have ALREADY suggested through e-mail that they do something
> after her friends leave but I have heard nothing yet, still early
> though. I'm sorry but she may be old enough to deal with her father
> herself but when it is my job to make plans for parties and other
> things, I have to be involved in this decision making process. One
> other concern that I have is his drinking. The last time he took her
> out to dinner he did a couple of shots in front of my daughter and
> then got in the car with her. I never said anything because he never
> called to see her again. I don't drink and drive, and I don't want him
> doing it, especially with my child in the car. What do I say without
> being too "controlling"? Surely you agree with me about thid being a
> safety issue?

I wouldn't let my children in a car with someone who had demonstrated a
tendency to drink and drive!! I would offer to drop her off with him
wherever they were going to spend their time, and pick her up when they were
done. And I'd make sure she had my cell phone with her, just in case!

As for your complaint about him not clearing his day with his daughter with
you first--you've made the request before and he has not complied. Leave it
be. Your daughter can tell him she has a party that day. Let her negotiate
with him. He, obviously, is not willing to give up his plans to be with
her. He did say this was the only day he had free to see her. She, also,
has plans she may not be willing or able to change to see him. And she can
tell him so. It's their relationship--stand behind her and be there for
her--but let her handle it.

Chris Owens
August 15th 03, 12:46 PM
The slumber party assuredly isn't going to take all day . . .
and, I can't imagine that a 9-year-old is going to be all that
much help in preparing for it. So, why not arrange something for
some other part of that day? Instead of fuming about how
inconsiderate he is -- which he IS, make no doubt of that -- be
FLEXIBLE in your daughter's best interests. Keep your temper,
set it up, and be glad your daughter is getting to see her Dad.
Then, whilst he's got her out, vent to your heart's content.
Manys the time my house has been cleaned to a fare-thee-well, or
an extra-large batch of bread has been kneaded into oblivion as
an outlet for my feelings about my wards' parents and
grandparents.

Chris Owens

Joy B wrote:
>
> You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
> I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
> with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
> she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
> Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
> Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
> slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
> He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
> guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
> He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
> the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
> day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
> suggestions?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Joy B
August 15th 03, 06:10 PM
Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
Joy
===
Chris Owens > wrote in message >...
> The slumber party assuredly isn't going to take all day . . .
> and, I can't imagine that a 9-year-old is going to be all that
> much help in preparing for it. So, why not arrange something for
> some other part of that day? Instead of fuming about how
> inconsiderate he is -- which he IS, make no doubt of that -- be
> FLEXIBLE in your daughter's best interests. Keep your temper,
> set it up, and be glad your daughter is getting to see her Dad.
> Then, whilst he's got her out, vent to your heart's content.
> Manys the time my house has been cleaned to a fare-thee-well, or
> an extra-large batch of bread has been kneaded into oblivion as
> an outlet for my feelings about my wards' parents and
> grandparents.
>
> Chris Owens
>
> Joy B wrote:
> >
> > You are so right! I never say anything bad about him in front of her.
> > I just tell her I'm sorry and when she asks why he doesn't do anything
> > with her, I just tell her that I don't know and that's a question
> > she'll need to ask him one day. However, her birthday is coming up.
> > Out of the blue with no contact in over 9 months, he calls yesterday.
> > Wants to see her. The ONLY day he is available is the day that her
> > slumber party is planned for and we've already sent out invitations.
> > He is busy EVERY other day of his life. So now my daughter feels
> > guilty for having her party on the same day her dad wants to see her.
> > He didn't even ask me before he mentioned this to her. He just got on
> > the phone with her and told her he would do something with her that
> > day. I'm sorry but I will have to have WORDS with him now. Any
> > suggestions?
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Tiffany
August 15th 03, 07:03 PM
Joy B > wrote in message
om...
> Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> Joy
> ===


I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very carefully.
If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks doesn't
impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I have
also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to tell me
that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not against
drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would see
her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!

Good luck with that. The cell phone idea is good.

Bob Whiteside
August 15th 03, 08:33 PM
"Tiffany" > wrote in message
...
>
> Joy B > wrote in message
> om...
> > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > Joy
> > ===
>
>
> I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very carefully.
> If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
doesn't
> impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I have
> also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to tell
me
> that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
> there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not against
> drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would see
> her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!

I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a couple
of NCP's drinking while parenting.

But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about this
issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows 50%
of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't admit
they have a problem.

So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers to
react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as appropriate
to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since the
CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.

Chris Owens
August 15th 03, 09:03 PM
Joy B wrote:
>
> When I say he should go through me it's because he hasn't been in her
> life for so many years, our lives just go on as planned. Did he think
> that there was nothing planned? So for him to tell her I want to do
> this on this day without checking what might be planned is unfair to
> HER! I have ALREADY suggested through e-mail that they do something
> after her friends leave but I have heard nothing yet, still early
> though. I'm sorry but she may be old enough to deal with her father
> herself but when it is my job to make plans for parties and other
> things, I have to be involved in this decision making process. One
> other concern that I have is his drinking. The last time he took her
> out to dinner he did a couple of shots in front of my daughter and
> then got in the car with her. I never said anything because he never
> called to see her again. I don't drink and drive, and I don't want him
> doing it, especially with my child in the car. What do I say without
> being too "controlling"? Surely you agree with me about thid being a
> safety issue?

This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
safety, and public safety.'

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 04:11 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Joy B > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > Joy
> > > ===
> >
> >
> > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
carefully.
> > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> doesn't
> > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
have
> > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
tell
> me
> > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
> > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
against
> > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would
see
> > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
>
> I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a couple
> of NCP's drinking while parenting.
>
> But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about this
> issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows 50%
> of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't admit
> they have a problem.
>
> So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers to
> react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as appropriate
> to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since
the
> CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.

That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute right to
tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the children in
the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so. And NCPs have
the same right to use legal means to prevent CPs from driving under the
influence with the children in the car. Of course, with the way things are
these days, the CPs will probably have far better luck. But, if someone
wanted to drink and drive with my children, I would not stop to ponder the
entire moral and ethical imbalance that you describe--I would do my best to
put a stop to it!

Tiffany
August 16th 03, 04:20 AM
Bob Whiteside > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Joy B > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > Joy
> > > ===
> >
> >
> > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
carefully.
> > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> doesn't
> > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
have
> > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
tell
> me
> > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
> > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
against
> > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would
see
> > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
>
> I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a couple
> of NCP's drinking while parenting.
>
> But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about this
> issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows 50%
> of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't admit
> they have a problem.
>
> So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers to
> react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as appropriate
> to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since
the
> CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.
>
>
>

Sure but I was answering to a CP.. regardless of sex as to how to react or
not react to talking with someone who drinks and drives with a child in the
car.

Tiffany
August 16th 03, 04:21 AM
Chris Owens > wrote in message
...
> Joy B wrote:
> >
> > When I say he should go through me it's because he hasn't been in her
> > life for so many years, our lives just go on as planned. Did he think
> > that there was nothing planned? So for him to tell her I want to do
> > this on this day without checking what might be planned is unfair to
> > HER! I have ALREADY suggested through e-mail that they do something
> > after her friends leave but I have heard nothing yet, still early
> > though. I'm sorry but she may be old enough to deal with her father
> > herself but when it is my job to make plans for parties and other
> > things, I have to be involved in this decision making process. One
> > other concern that I have is his drinking. The last time he took her
> > out to dinner he did a couple of shots in front of my daughter and
> > then got in the car with her. I never said anything because he never
> > called to see her again. I don't drink and drive, and I don't want him
> > doing it, especially with my child in the car. What do I say without
> > being too "controlling"? Surely you agree with me about thid being a
> > safety issue?
>
> This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
> whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
> safety, and public safety.'
>
> Chris Owens
>
>
And that simply will work, eh? Sure. :)

T

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 05:11 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now
but
> > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
drinking
> > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it
the
> > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
tells
> > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort
me
> > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help
but
> > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > Joy
> > > > ===
> > >
> > >
> > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> carefully.
> > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> > doesn't
> > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
> have
> > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
> tell
> > me
> > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
visit,
> > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> against
> > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would
> see
> > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> >
> > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
couple
> > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> >
> > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about
this
> > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows
50%
> > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
admit
> > they have a problem.
> >
> > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers
to
> > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
appropriate
> > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since
> the
> > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.
>
> That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute right to
> tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the children
in
> the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.

Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions about a
child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they have
no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no legal
right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control over
the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
should parent.

My comments were based on the fact many welfare recipients have been faced
with reaching their statutory limit on welfare benefits at 5 years. The
game is to declare themselves as alcoholics and drug abusers so they can be
reclassified as "disabled" extending their benefits indefinitely.

And NCPs have
> the same right to use legal means to prevent CPs from driving under the
> influence with the children in the car.

That's where your argument breaks down. The court's assume the CP's are
good parents and do not react to accusations brought by the NCP's about the
CP's parenting behavior. But the facts are, at least 50% of the welfare
recipients admit they have drug and alchohol problems. So my questions
continue - why aren't the courts and state welfare workers being proactive
in removing children from substance abuse households? My asssumption is
they don't care about substance abuse by parents.

Of course, with the way things are
> these days, the CPs will probably have far better luck. But, if someone
> wanted to drink and drive with my children, I would not stop to ponder the
> entire moral and ethical imbalance that you describe--I would do my best
to
> put a stop to it!

And if you were the NCP who acted to protect your children you would be
charged with custodial interference.

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 05:11 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now
but
> > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
drinking
> > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it
the
> > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
tells
> > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort
me
> > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help
but
> > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > Joy
> > > > ===
> > >
> > >
> > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> carefully.
> > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> > doesn't
> > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
> have
> > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
> tell
> > me
> > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
visit,
> > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> against
> > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would
> see
> > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> >
> > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
couple
> > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> >
> > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about
this
> > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows
50%
> > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
admit
> > they have a problem.
> >
> > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers
to
> > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
appropriate
> > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since
> the
> > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.
>
> That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute right to
> tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the children
in
> the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.

Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions about a
child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they have
no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no legal
right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control over
the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
should parent.

My comments were based on the fact many welfare recipients have been faced
with reaching their statutory limit on welfare benefits at 5 years. The
game is to declare themselves as alcoholics and drug abusers so they can be
reclassified as "disabled" extending their benefits indefinitely.

And NCPs have
> the same right to use legal means to prevent CPs from driving under the
> influence with the children in the car.

That's where your argument breaks down. The court's assume the CP's are
good parents and do not react to accusations brought by the NCP's about the
CP's parenting behavior. But the facts are, at least 50% of the welfare
recipients admit they have drug and alchohol problems. So my questions
continue - why aren't the courts and state welfare workers being proactive
in removing children from substance abuse households? My asssumption is
they don't care about substance abuse by parents.

Of course, with the way things are
> these days, the CPs will probably have far better luck. But, if someone
> wanted to drink and drive with my children, I would not stop to ponder the
> entire moral and ethical imbalance that you describe--I would do my best
to
> put a stop to it!

And if you were the NCP who acted to protect your children you would be
charged with custodial interference.

Joy B
August 16th 03, 05:31 AM
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.
Joy
===
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message et>...
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Joy B > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > Joy
> > > ===
> >
> >
> > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very carefully.
> > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> doesn't
> > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I have
> > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to tell
> me
> > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
> > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not against
> > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would see
> > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
>
> I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a couple
> of NCP's drinking while parenting.
>
> But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about this
> issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows 50%
> of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't admit
> they have a problem.
>
> So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers to
> react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as appropriate
> to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since the
> CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.

Joy B
August 16th 03, 05:31 AM
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.
Joy
===
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message et>...
> "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Joy B > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now but
> > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day of
> > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the drinking
> > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it the
> > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice of
> > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just in
> > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law tells
> > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't comfort me
> > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help but
> > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > Joy
> > > ===
> >
> >
> > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very carefully.
> > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> doesn't
> > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I have
> > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to tell
> me
> > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last visit,
> > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not against
> > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found it
> > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He would see
> > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
>
> I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a couple
> of NCP's drinking while parenting.
>
> But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about this
> issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In my
> state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows 50%
> of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't admit
> they have a problem.
>
> So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers to
> react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as appropriate
> to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs? Since the
> CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation time.

gini52
August 16th 03, 06:04 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them.
===
And I presume you would also require those receiving corporate welfare
to have the same testing? I can see it all now!
(More)
===
>This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children,
===
No, this would identify parents who are on welfare and are using drugs and
raising children.
Do you really believe there are more welfare drug users than non-welfare
drug users?
And how is it that you would justify testing welfare parents for drugs but
not non-welfare
parents? Is it about protecting children from drug using parents or
protecting tax dollars?
(More)
===
>then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.
> Joy
===
"Less fortunate" is not defined as simply without financial
means. I can assure you that there are many unfortunate kids in the homes of
non-welfare
working poor, in middle income homes and in high income homes. Unless you
are prepared
to mandate drug testing for all parents (and hey, why not do annual home
inspections as well),
I think you should reconsider your position. Do you know how many wealthy
parents use mood-altering
substances? Surely you are not that naive!
==
==

gini52
August 16th 03, 06:04 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them.
===
And I presume you would also require those receiving corporate welfare
to have the same testing? I can see it all now!
(More)
===
>This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children,
===
No, this would identify parents who are on welfare and are using drugs and
raising children.
Do you really believe there are more welfare drug users than non-welfare
drug users?
And how is it that you would justify testing welfare parents for drugs but
not non-welfare
parents? Is it about protecting children from drug using parents or
protecting tax dollars?
(More)
===
>then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.
> Joy
===
"Less fortunate" is not defined as simply without financial
means. I can assure you that there are many unfortunate kids in the homes of
non-welfare
working poor, in middle income homes and in high income homes. Unless you
are prepared
to mandate drug testing for all parents (and hey, why not do annual home
inspections as well),
I think you should reconsider your position. Do you know how many wealthy
parents use mood-altering
substances? Surely you are not that naive!
==
==

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 06:16 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 06:16 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 06:46 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.

I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
drug test, would you?

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 06:46 AM
"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
> NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> anywhere.
>
> I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> up and "react".
>
> Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> children could have a better chance of survival.

I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
drug test, would you?

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 07:14 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now
> but
> > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day
of
> > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> drinking
> > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it
> the
> > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice
of
> > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just
in
> > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
> tells
> > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
comfort
> me
> > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help
> but
> > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > Joy
> > > > > ===
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > carefully.
> > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> > > doesn't
> > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
> > have
> > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
> > tell
> > > me
> > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
> visit,
> > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> > against
> > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found
it
> > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
would
> > see
> > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > >
> > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
> couple
> > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > >
> > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about
> this
> > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In
my
> > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows
> 50%
> > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
> admit
> > > they have a problem.
> > >
> > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers
> to
> > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> appropriate
> > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
Since
> > the
> > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
time.
> >
> > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute right
to
> > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the children
> in
> > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
>
> Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions about
a
> child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
have
> no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
legal
> right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control over
> the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
> should parent.

Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs. I
could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so what
the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it would
be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and injured my
daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks wouldn't
impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should NEVER
drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.

teachrmama
August 16th 03, 07:14 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12 now
> but
> > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day
of
> > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> drinking
> > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about it
> the
> > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the advice
of
> > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just
in
> > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
> tells
> > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
comfort
> me
> > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't help
> but
> > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > Joy
> > > > > ===
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > carefully.
> > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two drinks
> > > doesn't
> > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight. I
> > have
> > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough to
> > tell
> > > me
> > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
> visit,
> > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> > against
> > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found
it
> > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
would
> > see
> > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > >
> > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
> couple
> > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > >
> > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care about
> this
> > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In
my
> > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site shows
> 50%
> > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and alcohol
> > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
> admit
> > > they have a problem.
> > >
> > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP mothers
> to
> > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> appropriate
> > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
Since
> > the
> > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider the
> > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on the
> > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
time.
> >
> > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute right
to
> > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the children
> in
> > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
>
> Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions about
a
> child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
have
> no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
legal
> right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control over
> the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
> should parent.

Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs. I
could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so what
the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it would
be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and injured my
daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks wouldn't
impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should NEVER
drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.

Joy B
August 16th 03, 02:12 PM
Those people shouldn't be raising children, and if they're on
disability for those reasons, they should be put into a mandatory
treatment program and let their disability checks pay for it.
Joy
===
"teachrmama" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>
> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
> drug test, would you?

Joy B
August 16th 03, 02:12 PM
Those people shouldn't be raising children, and if they're on
disability for those reasons, they should be put into a mandatory
treatment program and let their disability checks pay for it.
Joy
===
"teachrmama" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>
> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
> drug test, would you?

Joy B
August 16th 03, 02:19 PM
HMM...I knew I was opening a can of worms. You're right but as I said,
my position is still that no parent should do drugs, or anyone for
that matter. It's not a foolproof plan but it is a place to start.
Yes, it is about protecting tax dollars as well. That's because those
tax dollars are meant for the less fortunate children of those
parents. In a roundabout way the protection would eventually make it
to the child. I know other chlidren are less fortunate in many
different ways and when you come up with a way to help fix that, let
me know and I'll jump on your bandwagon. As I said, it's a start.
Joy
===
"gini52" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them.
> ===
> And I presume you would also require those receiving corporate welfare
> to have the same testing? I can see it all now!
> (More)
> ===
> >This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children,
> ===
> No, this would identify parents who are on welfare and are using drugs and
> raising children.
> Do you really believe there are more welfare drug users than non-welfare
> drug users?
> And how is it that you would justify testing welfare parents for drugs but
> not non-welfare
> parents? Is it about protecting children from drug using parents or
> protecting tax dollars?
> (More)
> ===
> >then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > Joy
> ===
> "Less fortunate" is not defined as simply without financial
> means. I can assure you that there are many unfortunate kids in the homes of
> non-welfare
> working poor, in middle income homes and in high income homes. Unless you
> are prepared
> to mandate drug testing for all parents (and hey, why not do annual home
> inspections as well),
> I think you should reconsider your position. Do you know how many wealthy
> parents use mood-altering
> substances? Surely you are not that naive!
> ==
> ==

Joy B
August 16th 03, 02:19 PM
HMM...I knew I was opening a can of worms. You're right but as I said,
my position is still that no parent should do drugs, or anyone for
that matter. It's not a foolproof plan but it is a place to start.
Yes, it is about protecting tax dollars as well. That's because those
tax dollars are meant for the less fortunate children of those
parents. In a roundabout way the protection would eventually make it
to the child. I know other chlidren are less fortunate in many
different ways and when you come up with a way to help fix that, let
me know and I'll jump on your bandwagon. As I said, it's a start.
Joy
===
"gini52" > wrote in message >...
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them.
> ===
> And I presume you would also require those receiving corporate welfare
> to have the same testing? I can see it all now!
> (More)
> ===
> >This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children,
> ===
> No, this would identify parents who are on welfare and are using drugs and
> raising children.
> Do you really believe there are more welfare drug users than non-welfare
> drug users?
> And how is it that you would justify testing welfare parents for drugs but
> not non-welfare
> parents? Is it about protecting children from drug using parents or
> protecting tax dollars?
> (More)
> ===
> >then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > Joy
> ===
> "Less fortunate" is not defined as simply without financial
> means. I can assure you that there are many unfortunate kids in the homes of
> non-welfare
> working poor, in middle income homes and in high income homes. Unless you
> are prepared
> to mandate drug testing for all parents (and hey, why not do annual home
> inspections as well),
> I think you should reconsider your position. Do you know how many wealthy
> parents use mood-altering
> substances? Surely you are not that naive!
> ==
> ==

Glow
August 16th 03, 03:20 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>
> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
> drug test, would you?


OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
disability benefits???????

ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
thought.........

Glow
August 16th 03, 03:20 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Joy B" > wrote in message
> om...
> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > anywhere.
> >
> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > up and "react".
> >
> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>
> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
> drug test, would you?


OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
disability benefits???????

ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
thought.........

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 03:48 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12
now
> > but
> > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day
> of
> > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > drinking
> > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about
it
> > the
> > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
advice
> of
> > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just
> in
> > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
> > tells
> > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> comfort
> > me
> > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't
help
> > but
> > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > > carefully.
> > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
drinks
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight.
I
> > > have
> > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough
to
> > > tell
> > > > me
> > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
> > visit,
> > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> > > against
> > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found
> it
> > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
> would
> > > see
> > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > >
> > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
> > couple
> > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > >
> > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
about
> > this
> > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In
> my
> > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
shows
> > 50%
> > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
alcohol
> > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
> > admit
> > > > they have a problem.
> > > >
> > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
mothers
> > to
> > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > appropriate
> > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
> Since
> > > the
> > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider
the
> > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on
the
> > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
> time.
> > >
> > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
right
> to
> > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
children
> > in
> > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> >
> > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
about
> a
> > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
> have
> > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
> legal
> > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control
over
> > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
> > should parent.
>
> Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
I
> could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so what
> the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
would
> be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
> cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and injured
my
> daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
wouldn't
> impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should NEVER
> drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
> behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
> influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.

I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to get
help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying late
with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a fence.
My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated language in
the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children in
the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a piece of
paper did nothing to stop the problem.

And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children in
the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.

My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to act
as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I tried
to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and never
before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my children
not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a track
record of ignoring this problem.

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 03:48 PM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12
now
> > but
> > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second day
> of
> > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an e-mail
> > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > drinking
> > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about
it
> > the
> > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
advice
> of
> > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take just
> in
> > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in law
> > tells
> > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> comfort
> > me
> > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't
help
> > but
> > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another 8+
> > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > ===
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > > carefully.
> > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
drinks
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG fight.
I
> > > have
> > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old enough
to
> > > tell
> > > > me
> > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the last
> > visit,
> > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am not
> > > against
> > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never found
> it
> > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
> would
> > > see
> > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > >
> > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on a
> > couple
> > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > >
> > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
about
> > this
> > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs. In
> my
> > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
shows
> > 50%
> > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
alcohol
> > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who don't
> > admit
> > > > they have a problem.
> > > >
> > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
mothers
> > to
> > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > appropriate
> > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
> Since
> > > the
> > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider
the
> > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on
the
> > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
> time.
> > >
> > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
right
> to
> > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
children
> > in
> > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> >
> > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
about
> a
> > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
> have
> > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
> legal
> > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control
over
> > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how they
> > should parent.
>
> Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or drugs.
I
> could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so what
> the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
would
> be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
> cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and injured
my
> daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
wouldn't
> impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should NEVER
> drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
> behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
> influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.

I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to get
help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying late
with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a fence.
My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated language in
the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children in
the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a piece of
paper did nothing to stop the problem.

And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children in
the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.

My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to act
as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I tried
to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and never
before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my children
not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a track
record of ignoring this problem.

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 08:53 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > > up and "react".
> > >
> > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers
hard
> > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going
on
> > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> problems
> > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
> the
> > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
"mothers'
> > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
> ==
> Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
> back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> So tell me:
> 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
> on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50% of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

> 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
> greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child abuse and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse. One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and drugs to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.

Bob Whiteside
August 16th 03, 08:53 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> >
> > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
> > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
> > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
> > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
> > > anywhere.
> > >
> > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
> > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
> > > up and "react".
> > >
> > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
> > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
> > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
> > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> >
> > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers
hard
> > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going
on
> > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> problems
> > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
> the
> > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
"mothers'
> > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
> ==
> Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
> back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> So tell me:
> 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
> on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50% of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

> 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
> greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child abuse and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse. One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and drugs to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.

gini52
August 16th 03, 11:14 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN
GET
> > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as
long
> > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
with
> > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
going
> > > > anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
doing
> > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should
step
> > > > up and "react".
> > > >
> > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
> > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing
out
> > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents
who
> > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers
> hard
> > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
going
> on
> > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> > problems
> > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children"
but
> > the
> > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> "mothers'
> > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
> > ==
> > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics
to
> > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > So tell me:
> > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
mothers
> > on drugs?
>
> Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
> you'll get results like this:
>
> http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>
> Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
> alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their abuse
> and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of welfare
> mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50% of
> welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>
> > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is
a
> > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>
> My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child abuse
and
> neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse. One
> of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement of
> welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and drugs
to
> support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I posted
> above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother drug
> and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents are *on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle "child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

>
>

gini52
August 16th 03, 11:14 PM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN
GET
> > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
> > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
> > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
> > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
> > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as
long
> > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
> > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
with
> > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
going
> > > > anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
> > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
doing
> > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should
step
> > > > up and "react".
> > > >
> > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
> > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
> > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing
out
> > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents
who
> > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
> > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > >
> > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers
> hard
> > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
going
> on
> > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> > problems
> > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children"
but
> > the
> > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> "mothers'
> > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
> > ==
> > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics
to
> > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > So tell me:
> > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
mothers
> > on drugs?
>
> Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
> you'll get results like this:
>
> http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>
> Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
> alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their abuse
> and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of welfare
> mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50% of
> welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>
> > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is
a
> > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>
> My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child abuse
and
> neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse. One
> of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement of
> welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and drugs
to
> support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I posted
> above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother drug
> and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents are *on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle "child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

>
>

Virginia
August 16th 03, 11:35 PM
Alcoholism has been grounds for SSI disablity for almost 20 years at least.

Glow wrote:
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>>>BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>>>you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>>>anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>>>nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>>>glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>>>as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>>>to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>>>dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>>>anywhere.
>>>
>>>I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>>>for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>>>excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>>>up and "react".
>>>
>>>Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>>>issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>>>welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>>>any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>>>are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>>>children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>>I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
>>run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
>>causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
>>ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
>>drug test, would you?
>
>
>
> OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
> disability benefits???????
>
> ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
> thought.........
>
>

Virginia
August 16th 03, 11:35 PM
Alcoholism has been grounds for SSI disablity for almost 20 years at least.

Glow wrote:
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Joy B" > wrote in message
om...
>>
>>>NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>>>BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>>>you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>>>anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>>>nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>>>glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>>>as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>>>to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>>>dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>>>anywhere.
>>>
>>>I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>>>for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>>>excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>>>up and "react".
>>>
>>>Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>>>issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>>>welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>>>any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>>>are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>>>children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>>I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
>>run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
>>causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
>>ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
>>drug test, would you?
>
>
>
> OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
> disability benefits???????
>
> ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
> thought.........
>
>

gini52
August 17th 03, 01:44 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
THEN
> > GET
> > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
> if
> > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
> by
> > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
> but
> > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
a
> > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
as
> > long
> > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
> given
> > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
> > with
> > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
> > going
> > > > > > anywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
> caring
> > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
> > doing
> > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
> > step
> > > > > > up and "react".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
> > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
> > collects
> > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
> > out
> > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
> > who
> > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
> > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > > > >
> > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
> > > hard
> > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
> > going
> > > on
> > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> > > > problems
> > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> > > "mothers'
> > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
> month.
> > > > ==
> > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
> > to
> > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > > > So tell me:
> > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
> > mothers
> > > > on drugs?
> > >
> > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
> > > you'll get results like this:
> > >
> > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
> > >
> > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
> > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
> abuse
> > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
> > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
of
> > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
> > >
> > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
> is
> > a
> > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
> > >
> > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
> > and
> > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
> One
> > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
> of
> > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
> drugs
> > to
> > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
> posted
> > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
> drug
> > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
> > ==
> > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
> have
> > not read and I presume you have not read):
> >
> > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
> haven:
> > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
> >
> > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
> *on*
> > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
> "child
> > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
> > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
> > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
> >
> > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
> children,
> > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
> > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
> you
> > owe.
> >
> > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
> >
> > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
mess
> > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
> > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
> > ==
> > ==
>
> When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
> to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
to
> what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
> being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
> children they have and their level of need.
>
> This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
> and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>
> Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
be
> right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
> liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
The
> liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
welf
> are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
> standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
for
> liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
> need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
> development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
should be violated based on gender.
Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
===
===

gini52
August 17th 03, 01:44 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > nk.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
THEN
> > GET
> > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
> if
> > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
> by
> > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
> but
> > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
a
> > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
as
> > long
> > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
> given
> > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
> > with
> > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
> > going
> > > > > > anywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
> caring
> > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
> > doing
> > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
> > step
> > > > > > up and "react".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
> > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
> > collects
> > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
> > out
> > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
> > who
> > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
> > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > > > >
> > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
> > > hard
> > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
> > going
> > > on
> > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
> > > > problems
> > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
> > but
> > > > the
> > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> > > "mothers'
> > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
> month.
> > > > ==
> > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
> > to
> > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > > > So tell me:
> > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
> > mothers
> > > > on drugs?
> > >
> > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
> > > you'll get results like this:
> > >
> > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
> > >
> > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
> > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
> abuse
> > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
> > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
of
> > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
> > >
> > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
> is
> > a
> > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
> > >
> > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
> > and
> > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
> One
> > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
> of
> > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
> drugs
> > to
> > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
> posted
> > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
> drug
> > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
> > ==
> > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
> have
> > not read and I presume you have not read):
> >
> > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
> haven:
> > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
> >
> > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
> *on*
> > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
> "child
> > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
> > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
> > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
> >
> > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
> children,
> > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
> > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
> you
> > owe.
> >
> > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
> >
> > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
mess
> > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
> > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
> > ==
> > ==
>
> When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
> to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
to
> what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
> being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
> children they have and their level of need.
>
> This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
> and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>
> Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
be
> right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
> liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
The
> liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
welf
> are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
> standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
for
> liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
> need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
> development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
should be violated based on gender.
Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
===
===

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 02:55 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12
> now
> > > but
> > > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second
day
> > of
> > > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an
e-mail
> > > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > > drinking
> > > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about
> it
> > > the
> > > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
> advice
> > of
> > > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take
just
> > in
> > > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in
law
> > > tells
> > > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> > comfort
> > > me
> > > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't
> help
> > > but
> > > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another
8+
> > > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > > > carefully.
> > > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
> drinks
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG
fight.
> I
> > > > have
> > > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old
enough
> to
> > > > tell
> > > > > me
> > > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the
last
> > > visit,
> > > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am
not
> > > > against
> > > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never
found
> > it
> > > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
> > would
> > > > see
> > > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > > >
> > > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on
a
> > > couple
> > > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
> about
> > > this
> > > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs.
In
> > my
> > > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
> shows
> > > 50%
> > > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
> alcohol
> > > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who
don't
> > > admit
> > > > > they have a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
> mothers
> > > to
> > > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > > appropriate
> > > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
> > Since
> > > > the
> > > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider
> the
> > > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on
> the
> > > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
> > time.
> > > >
> > > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
> right
> > to
> > > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
> children
> > > in
> > > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> > >
> > > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
> about
> > a
> > > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
> > have
> > > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
> > legal
> > > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control
> over
> > > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how
they
> > > should parent.
> >
> > Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or
drugs.
> I
> > could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so
what
> > the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
> would
> > be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
> > cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and
injured
> my
> > daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
> wouldn't
> > impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should
NEVER
> > drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> > someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
> > behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
> > influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.
>
> I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to get
> help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
> children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying
late
> with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a
fence.
> My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
> drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated language
in
> the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children in
> the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a piece
of
> paper did nothing to stop the problem.

I'm assuming that the police must not have become involved, because, surely,
they would have tested for alcohol. How could any mother do that to her
children, and act as if she had done nothing wrong?!

> And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
> abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children
in
> the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
> lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.

I know, Bob. I have children in my classroom who fit this description. And
there is no way to get any help for them until you "see bruises." These
kids just seem to get lost in the system that was supposedly set up to help
them!

>
> My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to act
> as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I
tried
> to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
> Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and never
> before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my children
> not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
> custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
> problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a
track
> record of ignoring this problem.

Unfortunately, that is true in far too many cases.

teachrmama
August 17th 03, 02:55 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > nk.net...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > ink.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning 12
> now
> > > but
> > > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second
day
> > of
> > > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an
e-mail
> > > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet to
> > > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > > drinking
> > > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me about
> it
> > > the
> > > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
> advice
> > of
> > > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take
just
> > in
> > > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in
law
> > > tells
> > > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> > comfort
> > > me
> > > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but can't
> help
> > > but
> > > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for another
8+
> > > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > > ===
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue very
> > > > carefully.
> > > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
> drinks
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG
fight.
> I
> > > > have
> > > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old
enough
> to
> > > > tell
> > > > > me
> > > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the
last
> > > visit,
> > > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am
not
> > > > against
> > > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never
found
> > it
> > > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car. He
> > would
> > > > see
> > > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > > >
> > > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice on
a
> > > couple
> > > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > > >
> > > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
> about
> > > this
> > > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs.
In
> > my
> > > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
> shows
> > > 50%
> > > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
> alcohol
> > > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who
don't
> > > admit
> > > > > they have a problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
> mothers
> > > to
> > > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > > appropriate
> > > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing drugs?
> > Since
> > > > the
> > > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I consider
> the
> > > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact on
> the
> > > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a visitation
> > time.
> > > >
> > > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
> right
> > to
> > > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
> children
> > > in
> > > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> > >
> > > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
> about
> > a
> > > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but they
> > have
> > > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has no
> > legal
> > > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise control
> over
> > > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how
they
> > > should parent.
> >
> > Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or
drugs.
> I
> > could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so
what
> > the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
> would
> > be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone had
> > cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and
injured
> my
> > daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
> wouldn't
> > impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should
NEVER
> > drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> > someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he got
> > behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under the
> > influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.
>
> I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to get
> help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
> children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying
late
> with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a
fence.
> My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
> drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated language
in
> the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children in
> the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a piece
of
> paper did nothing to stop the problem.

I'm assuming that the police must not have become involved, because, surely,
they would have tested for alcohol. How could any mother do that to her
children, and act as if she had done nothing wrong?!

> And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
> abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children
in
> the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
> lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.

I know, Bob. I have children in my classroom who fit this description. And
there is no way to get any help for them until you "see bruises." These
kids just seem to get lost in the system that was supposedly set up to help
them!

>
> My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to act
> as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I
tried
> to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
> Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and never
> before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my children
> not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
> custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
> problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a
track
> record of ignoring this problem.

Unfortunately, that is true in far too many cases.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 03:17 AM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
> THEN
> > > GET
> > > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
> care
> > if
> > > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
done
> > by
> > > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
drugs,
> > but
> > > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
have
> a
> > > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
> as
> > > long
> > > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
> > given
> > > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
problem
> > > with
> > > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
of
> > > going
> > > > > > > anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
> > caring
> > > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother
is
> > > doing
> > > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
> should
> > > step
> > > > > > > up and "react".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
> welfare
> > > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
> > > collects
> > > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
> handing
> > > out
> > > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
> parents
> > > who
> > > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
> fortunate
> > > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
> mothers
> > > > hard
> > > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
really
> > > going
> > > > on
> > > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
alcohol
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
> children"
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> > > > "mothers'
> > > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
> > month.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
> statistics
> > > to
> > > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > > > > So tell me:
> > > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
> > > mothers
> > > > > on drugs?
> > > >
> > > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
and
> > > > you'll get results like this:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
> > > >
> > > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
and
> > > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
> > abuse
> > > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
> welfare
> > > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
> of
> > > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
drugs
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
> > > >
> > > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
> abuse
> > > and
> > > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
abuse.
> > One
> > > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
involvement
> > of
> > > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
> > drugs
> > > to
> > > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
> > posted
> > > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
mother
> > drug
> > > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
> > > ==
> > > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
> > have
> > > not read and I presume you have not read):
> > >
> > > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
> > haven:
> > > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
> > >
> > > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
> > *on*
> > > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
> > "child
> > > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
state
> > > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
> > > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
> > >
> > > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
> > children,
> > > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
> licenses,
> > > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
what
> > you
> > > owe.
> > >
> > > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
> > >
> > > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
> mess
> > > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
these
> > > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
> > > ==
> > > ==
> >
> > When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
refer
> > to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
referring
> to
> > what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
> > being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
> > children they have and their level of need.
> >
> > This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
alcohol
> > and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
> >
> > Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
may
> be
> > right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
of
> > liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
> The
> > liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
> welf
> > are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
welfare
> > standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
> for
> > liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
> mothers
> > need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
> > development.
> ===
> I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
> skepticism--
> Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
> agenda they are
> attempting to bolster. That is the
> normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
> interest group.
> I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
> unfortunately
> (or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
> researching/interpreting data.
> In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
> used to assert that
> uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
only
> in a very small fraction of cases.
> Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
> comparatively tiny amount of government waste
> and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
> should be violated based on gender.
> Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
> ===
> ===

Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th amendment
prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a group
of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not the
intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
(like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
government define a class.

My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way they
want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare benefits.
IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the protected
class because of their personal lifestyle choices.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 03:17 AM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > ink.net...
> > > >
> > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > nk.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
> THEN
> > > GET
> > > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
> care
> > if
> > > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
done
> > by
> > > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
drugs,
> > but
> > > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
have
> a
> > > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
> as
> > > long
> > > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
> > given
> > > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
problem
> > > with
> > > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
of
> > > going
> > > > > > > anywhere.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
> > caring
> > > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother
is
> > > doing
> > > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
> should
> > > step
> > > > > > > up and "react".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
> welfare
> > > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
> > > collects
> > > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
> handing
> > > out
> > > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
> parents
> > > who
> > > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
> fortunate
> > > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
> mothers
> > > > hard
> > > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
really
> > > going
> > > > on
> > > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
alcohol
> > > > > problems
> > > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
> children"
> > > but
> > > > > the
> > > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
> > > > "mothers'
> > > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
> > month.
> > > > > ==
> > > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
> statistics
> > > to
> > > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
> > > > > So tell me:
> > > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
> > > mothers
> > > > > on drugs?
> > > >
> > > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
and
> > > > you'll get results like this:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
> > > >
> > > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
and
> > > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
> > abuse
> > > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
> welfare
> > > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
> of
> > > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
> > > >
> > > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
drugs
> > is
> > > a
> > > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
> > > >
> > > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
> abuse
> > > and
> > > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
abuse.
> > One
> > > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
involvement
> > of
> > > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
> > drugs
> > > to
> > > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
> > posted
> > > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
mother
> > drug
> > > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
> > > ==
> > > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
> > have
> > > not read and I presume you have not read):
> > >
> > > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
> > haven:
> > > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
> > >
> > > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
> > *on*
> > > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
> > "child
> > > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
state
> > > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
> > > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
> > >
> > > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
> > children,
> > > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
> licenses,
> > > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
what
> > you
> > > owe.
> > >
> > > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
> > >
> > > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
> mess
> > > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
these
> > > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
> > > ==
> > > ==
> >
> > When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
refer
> > to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
referring
> to
> > what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
> > being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
> > children they have and their level of need.
> >
> > This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
alcohol
> > and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
> >
> > Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
may
> be
> > right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
of
> > liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
> The
> > liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
> welf
> > are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
welfare
> > standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
> for
> > liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
> mothers
> > need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
> > development.
> ===
> I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
> skepticism--
> Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
> agenda they are
> attempting to bolster. That is the
> normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
> interest group.
> I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
> unfortunately
> (or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
> researching/interpreting data.
> In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
> used to assert that
> uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
only
> in a very small fraction of cases.
> Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
> comparatively tiny amount of government waste
> and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
> should be violated based on gender.
> Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
> ===
> ===

Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th amendment
prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a group
of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not the
intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
(like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
government define a class.

My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way they
want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare benefits.
IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the protected
class because of their personal lifestyle choices.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 04:03 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning
12
> > now
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second
> day
> > > of
> > > > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an
> e-mail
> > > > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet
to
> > > > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > > > drinking
> > > > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me
about
> > it
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
> > advice
> > > of
> > > > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take
> just
> > > in
> > > > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in
> law
> > > > tells
> > > > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> > > comfort
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but
can't
> > help
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for
another
> 8+
> > > > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > > > ===
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue
very
> > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
> > drinks
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG
> fight.
> > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old
> enough
> > to
> > > > > tell
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the
> last
> > > > visit,
> > > > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am
> not
> > > > > against
> > > > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never
> found
> > > it
> > > > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car.
He
> > > would
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice
on
> a
> > > > couple
> > > > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
> > about
> > > > this
> > > > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs.
> In
> > > my
> > > > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
> > shows
> > > > 50%
> > > > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
> > alcohol
> > > > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who
> don't
> > > > admit
> > > > > > they have a problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
> > mothers
> > > > to
> > > > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > > > appropriate
> > > > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing
drugs?
> > > Since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I
consider
> > the
> > > > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact
on
> > the
> > > > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a
visitation
> > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
> > right
> > > to
> > > > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
> > children
> > > > in
> > > > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
> > about
> > > a
> > > > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but
they
> > > have
> > > > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > > > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has
no
> > > legal
> > > > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > > > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise
control
> > over
> > > > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how
> they
> > > > should parent.
> > >
> > > Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or
> drugs.
> > I
> > > could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so
> what
> > > the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
> > would
> > > be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone
had
> > > cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and
> injured
> > my
> > > daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
> > wouldn't
> > > impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should
> NEVER
> > > drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> > > someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he
got
> > > behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under
the
> > > influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.
> >
> > I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to
get
> > help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
> > children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying
> late
> > with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a
> fence.
> > My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
> > drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated
language
> in
> > the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children
in
> > the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a
piece
> of
> > paper did nothing to stop the problem.
>
> I'm assuming that the police must not have become involved, because,
surely,
> they would have tested for alcohol. How could any mother do that to her
> children, and act as if she had done nothing wrong?!

Easy answer. You call a tow truck to get your car out of the homeowners
front yard. You treat the accident like a hit and run and leave the
homeowner with a busted up fence and no indication of how it got broken.
You "date" the tow truck operator for helping you out of a legal jam. Then
you claim you weren't drinking. It doesn't take much of a conscience to
pull that off.

>
> > And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
> > abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children
> in
> > the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
> > lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.
>
> I know, Bob. I have children in my classroom who fit this description.
And
> there is no way to get any help for them until you "see bruises." These
> kids just seem to get lost in the system that was supposedly set up to
help
> them!

I was lucky. By the time my children got to about the third grade their
teachers started becoming more vocal about their willingness to help me (and
testify) should I decide to go for a custody change. They told me they were
violating school district rules by volenteering to be a witness. When I
tried to move towards a custody change, and spent thousandsof dollars, the
judge cut off my attempt saying she would not hear the case.

>
> >
> > My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to
act
> > as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I
> tried
> > to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
> > Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and
never
> > before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my
children
> > not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
> > custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
> > problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a
> track
> > record of ignoring this problem.
>
> Unfortunately, that is true in far too many cases.

I couldn't agree more.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 04:03 AM
"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > nk.net...
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > > > > ink.net...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Tiffany" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joy B > wrote in message
> > > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > > Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning
12
> > now
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second
> day
> > > of
> > > > > > > > the party that he is available and I have already sent an
> e-mail
> > > > > > > > suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet
to
> > > > > > > > respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
> > > > drinking
> > > > > > > > and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me
about
> > it
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
> > advice
> > > of
> > > > > > > > one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take
> just
> > > in
> > > > > > > > case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in
> law
> > > > tells
> > > > > > > > me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
> > > comfort
> > > > me
> > > > > > > > too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but
can't
> > help
> > > > but
> > > > > > > > feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for
another
> 8+
> > > > > > > > months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
> > > > > > > > Joy
> > > > > > > > ===
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue
very
> > > > > carefully.
> > > > > > > If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
> > drinks
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > > impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG
> fight.
> > I
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old
> enough
> > to
> > > > > tell
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the
> last
> > > > visit,
> > > > > > > there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am
> not
> > > > > against
> > > > > > > drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never
> found
> > > it
> > > > > > > necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car.
He
> > > would
> > > > > see
> > > > > > > her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice
on
> a
> > > > couple
> > > > > > of NCP's drinking while parenting.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
> > about
> > > > this
> > > > > > issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs.
> In
> > > my
> > > > > > state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
> > shows
> > > > 50%
> > > > > > of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
> > alcohol
> > > > > > problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who
> don't
> > > > admit
> > > > > > they have a problem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
> > mothers
> > > > to
> > > > > > react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
> > > > appropriate
> > > > > > to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing
drugs?
> > > Since
> > > > > the
> > > > > > CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I
consider
> > the
> > > > > > mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact
on
> > the
> > > > > > children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a
visitation
> > > time.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
> > right
> > > to
> > > > > tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
> > children
> > > > in
> > > > > the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.
> > > >
> > > > Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
> > about
> > > a
> > > > child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but
they
> > > have
> > > > no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
> > > > disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has
no
> > > legal
> > > > right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
> > > > slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise
control
> > over
> > > > the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how
> they
> > > > should parent.
> > >
> > > Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or
> drugs.
> > I
> > > could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so
> what
> > > the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
> > would
> > > be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone
had
> > > cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and
> injured
> > my
> > > daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
> > wouldn't
> > > impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should
> NEVER
> > > drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
> > > someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he
got
> > > behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under
the
> > > influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.
> >
> > I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to
get
> > help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
> > children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying
> late
> > with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a
> fence.
> > My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
> > drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated
language
> in
> > the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children
in
> > the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a
piece
> of
> > paper did nothing to stop the problem.
>
> I'm assuming that the police must not have become involved, because,
surely,
> they would have tested for alcohol. How could any mother do that to her
> children, and act as if she had done nothing wrong?!

Easy answer. You call a tow truck to get your car out of the homeowners
front yard. You treat the accident like a hit and run and leave the
homeowner with a busted up fence and no indication of how it got broken.
You "date" the tow truck operator for helping you out of a legal jam. Then
you claim you weren't drinking. It doesn't take much of a conscience to
pull that off.

>
> > And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
> > abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children
> in
> > the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
> > lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.
>
> I know, Bob. I have children in my classroom who fit this description.
And
> there is no way to get any help for them until you "see bruises." These
> kids just seem to get lost in the system that was supposedly set up to
help
> them!

I was lucky. By the time my children got to about the third grade their
teachers started becoming more vocal about their willingness to help me (and
testify) should I decide to go for a custody change. They told me they were
violating school district rules by volenteering to be a witness. When I
tried to move towards a custody change, and spent thousandsof dollars, the
judge cut off my attempt saying she would not hear the case.

>
> >
> > My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to
act
> > as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I
> tried
> > to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
> > Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and
never
> > before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my
children
> > not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
> > custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
> > problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a
> track
> > record of ignoring this problem.
>
> Unfortunately, that is true in far too many cases.

I couldn't agree more.

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:27 AM
Hell, Glow...

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>> > anywhere.
>> >
>> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>> > up and "react".
>> >
>> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
>> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
>> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
>> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
>> drug test, would you?
>
>
>OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
>disability benefits???????
>
>ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
>thought.........

....the US is worse off than most of the people *I*N* the US thought.

Many of us can't help but believe that if the big majority of ordinary citizens
actually knew what was being done by this socialist government they'd hang the
lot of them.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:27 AM
Hell, Glow...

>"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>> > anywhere.
>> >
>> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>> > up and "react".
>> >
>> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>> I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
>> run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
>> causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
>> ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
>> drug test, would you?
>
>
>OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
>disability benefits???????
>
>ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
>thought.........

....the US is worse off than most of the people *I*N* the US thought.

Many of us can't help but believe that if the big majority of ordinary citizens
actually knew what was being done by this socialist government they'd hang the
lot of them.

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:39 AM
"Paltry"??????....

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>> > anywhere.
>> >
>> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>> > up and "react".
>> >
>> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
>> earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
>> is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
>problems
>> to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
>the
>> children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
>> payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
>==
>Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
>back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>So tell me:
>1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
>on drugs?
>2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
>greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>But, don't get me started. Well, OK since you already got me started--Yeah,
>Bush's July tax cuts left us with all of 24.00 more dollars in our monthly
>income. That'll create a lot of jobs, eh? We paid almost enough federal
>income tax alone in 2002 (16k+) to support a family of 4 above poverty
>level for a year (18k). Yeah, I'm ****ed about tax waste but the anger isn't
>directed at the paltry amount going to welfare moms and I'll be damned if I
>want to foot the bill to drug test them all.

You bought my daughter's mother a $5000 jeep, a new house and a bunch of
furniture. And that was just in the last year. You're going to hand her
another handful of cash next year when she "graduates" from one of those
"non-welfare" programs. She gets food stamps and a few other benefits that are
"not welfare" besides all that cash and as far as any government data about
people "on welfare"....she doesn't count, she's just "low income".....

Sure quacks like a duck though.....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 08:39 AM
"Paltry"??????....

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>>
>> "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
>> > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
>> > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
>> > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
>> > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
>> > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
>> > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
>> > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
>> > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
>> > anywhere.
>> >
>> > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
>> > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
>> > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
>> > up and "react".
>> >
>> > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
>> > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
>> > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
>> > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
>> > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
>> > children could have a better chance of survival.
>>
>> I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
>> earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
>> is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
>problems
>> to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
>the
>> children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
>> payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
>==
>Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
>back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>So tell me:
>1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
>on drugs?
>2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
>greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>But, don't get me started. Well, OK since you already got me started--Yeah,
>Bush's July tax cuts left us with all of 24.00 more dollars in our monthly
>income. That'll create a lot of jobs, eh? We paid almost enough federal
>income tax alone in 2002 (16k+) to support a family of 4 above poverty
>level for a year (18k). Yeah, I'm ****ed about tax waste but the anger isn't
>directed at the paltry amount going to welfare moms and I'll be damned if I
>want to foot the bill to drug test them all.

You bought my daughter's mother a $5000 jeep, a new house and a bunch of
furniture. And that was just in the last year. You're going to hand her
another handful of cash next year when she "graduates" from one of those
"non-welfare" programs. She gets food stamps and a few other benefits that are
"not welfare" besides all that cash and as far as any government data about
people "on welfare"....she doesn't count, she's just "low income".....

Sure quacks like a duck though.....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 09:21 AM
Wait a minute, Gini...

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > nk.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> > > > > om...
>> > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
>THEN
>> > GET
>> > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
>care
>> if
>> > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
>> by
>> > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
>> but
>> > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
>a
>> > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
>as
>> > long
>> > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
>> given
>> > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
>> > with
>> > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
>> > going
>> > > > > > anywhere.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
>> caring
>> > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
>> > doing
>> > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
>should
>> > step
>> > > > > > up and "react".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
>welfare
>> > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
>> > collects
>> > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
>handing
>> > out
>> > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
>parents
>> > who
>> > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
>fortunate
>> > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
>mothers
>> > > hard
>> > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
>> > going
>> > > on
>> > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
>> > > > problems
>> > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
>children"
>> > but
>> > > > the
>> > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
>> > > "mothers'
>> > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
>> month.
>> > > > ==
>> > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
>statistics
>> > to
>> > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>> > > > So tell me:
>> > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
>> > mothers
>> > > > on drugs?
>> > >
>> > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
>> > > you'll get results like this:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>> > >
>> > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
>> > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
>> abuse
>> > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
>welfare
>> > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
>of
>> > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>> > >
>> > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
>> is
>> > a
>> > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>> > >
>> > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
>abuse
>> > and
>> > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
>> One
>> > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
>> of
>> > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
>> drugs
>> > to
>> > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
>> posted
>> > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
>> drug
>> > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
>> > ==
>> > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
>> have
>> > not read and I presume you have not read):
>> >
>> > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
>> haven:
>> > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
>> >
>> > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
>> *on*
>> > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
>> "child
>> > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
>> > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
>> > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
>> >
>> > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
>> children,
>> > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
>licenses,
>> > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
>> you
>> > owe.
>> >
>> > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
>> >
>> > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
>mess
>> > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
>> > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
>> > ==
>> > ==
>>
>> When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
>> to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
>to
>> what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
>> being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
>> children they have and their level of need.
>>
>> This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
>> and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>>
>> Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
>be
>> right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
>> liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
>The
>> liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
>welf
>> are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
>> standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
>for
>> liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
>mothers
>> need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
>> development.
>===
>I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
>skepticism--
>Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
>agenda they are
>attempting to bolster. That is the
>normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
>interest group.
>I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
>unfortunately
>(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
>researching/interpreting data.
>In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
>used to assert that
>uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
>in a very small fraction of cases.
>Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
>comparatively tiny amount of government waste
>and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
>should be violated based on gender.

....where's the violation? Seems to me the suggestion was that people be tested
regularly as a condition of participating in certain voluntary government
programs - sort of like being "forced" to take an eye test if you want a
drivers license. If you don't want your eyes tested, don't ask for a drivers
license. Nobody is going to force anyone to be tested "based on class" -
people can be as poor as they wish and not be tested. A mother with 3 kids can
have a monthly income of $1200 and not be tested. But if that mother wants
that $1200 to come from the government.....she's going to have to accept
whatever strings are attached to the offer.

Now you would have a valid point if the people already on welfare were not
given the option of being tested OR turning down the benefit. Forcing someone
to participate in a government program when they've done nothing wrong would be
wrong in itself...

Now if we could just get around the little problem regarding the fact that
we've already labeled the drug use as a crime, which automatically qualifies
the user for having some rights removed...

Mel Gamble

>Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 09:21 AM
Wait a minute, Gini...

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > nk.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> > > > > om...
>> > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
>THEN
>> > GET
>> > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
>care
>> if
>> > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
>> by
>> > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
>> but
>> > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
>a
>> > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
>as
>> > long
>> > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
>> given
>> > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
>> > with
>> > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
>> > going
>> > > > > > anywhere.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
>> caring
>> > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
>> > doing
>> > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
>should
>> > step
>> > > > > > up and "react".
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
>welfare
>> > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
>> > collects
>> > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
>handing
>> > out
>> > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
>parents
>> > who
>> > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
>fortunate
>> > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
>mothers
>> > > hard
>> > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
>> > going
>> > > on
>> > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
>> > > > problems
>> > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
>children"
>> > but
>> > > > the
>> > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
>> > > "mothers'
>> > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
>> month.
>> > > > ==
>> > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
>statistics
>> > to
>> > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>> > > > So tell me:
>> > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
>> > mothers
>> > > > on drugs?
>> > >
>> > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
>> > > you'll get results like this:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>> > >
>> > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
>> > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
>> abuse
>> > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
>welfare
>> > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
>of
>> > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>> > >
>> > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
>> is
>> > a
>> > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>> > >
>> > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
>abuse
>> > and
>> > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
>> One
>> > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
>> of
>> > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
>> drugs
>> > to
>> > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
>> posted
>> > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
>> drug
>> > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
>> > ==
>> > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
>> have
>> > not read and I presume you have not read):
>> >
>> > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
>> haven:
>> > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
>> >
>> > There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
>> *on*
>> > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
>> "child
>> > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
>> > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
>> > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
>> >
>> > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
>> children,
>> > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
>licenses,
>> > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
>> you
>> > owe.
>> >
>> > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
>> >
>> > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
>mess
>> > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
>> > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
>> > ==
>> > ==
>>
>> When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
>> to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
>to
>> what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
>> being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
>> children they have and their level of need.
>>
>> This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
>> and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>>
>> Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
>be
>> right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
>> liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
>The
>> liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
>welf
>> are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
>> standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
>for
>> liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
>mothers
>> need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
>> development.
>===
>I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
>skepticism--
>Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
>agenda they are
>attempting to bolster. That is the
>normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
>interest group.
>I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
>unfortunately
>(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
>researching/interpreting data.
>In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
>used to assert that
>uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
>in a very small fraction of cases.
>Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
>comparatively tiny amount of government waste
>and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
>should be violated based on gender.

....where's the violation? Seems to me the suggestion was that people be tested
regularly as a condition of participating in certain voluntary government
programs - sort of like being "forced" to take an eye test if you want a
drivers license. If you don't want your eyes tested, don't ask for a drivers
license. Nobody is going to force anyone to be tested "based on class" -
people can be as poor as they wish and not be tested. A mother with 3 kids can
have a monthly income of $1200 and not be tested. But if that mother wants
that $1200 to come from the government.....she's going to have to accept
whatever strings are attached to the offer.

Now you would have a valid point if the people already on welfare were not
given the option of being tested OR turning down the benefit. Forcing someone
to participate in a government program when they've done nothing wrong would be
wrong in itself...

Now if we could just get around the little problem regarding the fact that
we've already labeled the drug use as a crime, which automatically qualifies
the user for having some rights removed...

Mel Gamble

>Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 09:34 AM
But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > ink.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > nk.net...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > om...
>> > > > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING
>SUBSTANCE,
>> > THEN
>> > > > GET
>> > > > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
>> > care
>> > > if
>> > > > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
>> done
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
>> drugs,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
>> have
>> > a
>> > > > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a
>child
>> > as
>> > > > long
>> > > > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of
>care
>> > > given
>> > > > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
>> problem
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
>> of
>> > > > going
>> > > > > > > > anywhere.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
>> > > caring
>> > > > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a
>mother
>> is
>> > > > doing
>> > > > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
>> > should
>> > > > step
>> > > > > > > > up and "react".
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
>> > welfare
>> > > > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
>> > > > collects
>> > > > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
>> > handing
>> > > > out
>> > > > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
>> > parents
>> > > > who
>> > > > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
>> > fortunate
>> > > > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
>> > mothers
>> > > > > hard
>> > > > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
>> really
>> > > > going
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
>> alcohol
>> > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
>> > children"
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about
>when
>> > > > > "mothers'
>> > > > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
>> > > month.
>> > > > > > ==
>> > > > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
>> > statistics
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>> > > > > > So tell me:
>> > > > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of
>welfare
>> > > > mothers
>> > > > > > on drugs?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
>> and
>> > > > > you'll get results like this:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
>> and
>> > > > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to
>their
>> > > abuse
>> > > > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
>> > welfare
>> > > > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports
>50%
>> > of
>> > > > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
>> drugs
>> > > is
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
>> > abuse
>> > > > and
>> > > > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
>> abuse.
>> > > One
>> > > > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
>> involvement
>> > > of
>> > > > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money
>and
>> > > drugs
>> > > > to
>> > > > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference
>I
>> > > posted
>> > > > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
>> mother
>> > > drug
>> > > > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
>> > > > ==
>> > > > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which
>I
>> > > have
>> > > > not read and I presume you have not read):
>> > > >
>> > > > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No
>safe
>> > > haven:
>> > > > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is no indication that this article states that these parents
>are
>> > > *on*
>> > > > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
>> > > "child
>> > > > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
>> state
>> > > > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from
>Donna
>> > > > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
>> > > children,
>> > > > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
>> > licenses,
>> > > > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
>> what
>> > > you
>> > > > owe.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
>> > > >
>> > > > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family
>court
>> > mess
>> > > > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
>> these
>> > > > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
>> > > > ==
>> > > > ==
>> > >
>> > > When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
>> refer
>> > > to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
>> referring
>> > to
>> > > what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public
>money
>> > > being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how
>many
>> > > children they have and their level of need.
>> > >
>> > > This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
>> alcohol
>> > > and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>> > >
>> > > Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
>> may
>> > be
>> > > right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
>> of
>> > > liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the
>mothers.
>> > The
>> > > liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium
>on
>> > welf
>> > > are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
>> welfare
>> > > standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of
>character
>> > for
>> > > liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
>> > mothers
>> > > need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
>> > > development.
>> > ===
>> > I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
>> > skepticism--
>> > Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or
>what
>> > agenda they are
>> > attempting to bolster. That is the
>> > normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
>> > interest group.
>> > I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
>> > unfortunately
>> > (or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
>> > researching/interpreting data.
>> > In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that
>are
>> > used to assert that
>> > uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
>> only
>> > in a very small fraction of cases.
>> > Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
>> > comparatively tiny amount of government waste
>> > and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than
>it
>> > should be violated based on gender.
>> > Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
>> > ===
>> > ===
>>
>> Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th
>amendment
>> prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a
>group
>> of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
>> the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
>> unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
>> ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
>> protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not
>the
>> intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
>> government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
>> (like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
>> challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
>> government define a class.
>>
>> My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way
>they
>> want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
>> establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare
>benefits.
>> IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
>> qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the
>protected
>> class because of their personal lifestyle choices.
>==
>But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering substances
>before we give them their welfare checks?

....because their checks aren't "for the children"....

Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 17th 03, 09:34 AM
But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...

>"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> > >
>> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > ink.net...
>> > > > >
>> > > > > "gini52" > wrote in message
>> > > > > ...
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > nk.net...
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > "Joy B" > wrote in message
>> > > > > > > om...
>> > > > > > > > NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING
>SUBSTANCE,
>> > THEN
>> > > > GET
>> > > > > > > > BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
>> > care
>> > > if
>> > > > > > > > you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
>> done
>> > > by
>> > > > > > > > anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
>> drugs,
>> > > but
>> > > > > > > > nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
>> have
>> > a
>> > > > > > > > glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a
>child
>> > as
>> > > > long
>> > > > > > > > as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of
>care
>> > > given
>> > > > > > > > to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
>> problem
>> > > > with
>> > > > > > > > dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
>> of
>> > > > going
>> > > > > > > > anywhere.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
>> > > caring
>> > > > > > > > for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a
>mother
>> is
>> > > > doing
>> > > > > > > > excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
>> > should
>> > > > step
>> > > > > > > > up and "react".
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
>> > welfare
>> > > > > > > > issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
>> > > > collects
>> > > > > > > > welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
>> > handing
>> > > > out
>> > > > > > > > any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
>> > parents
>> > > > who
>> > > > > > > > are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
>> > fortunate
>> > > > > > > > children could have a better chance of survival.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
>> > mothers
>> > > > > hard
>> > > > > > > earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
>> really
>> > > > going
>> > > > > on
>> > > > > > > is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
>> alcohol
>> > > > > > problems
>> > > > > > > to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
>> > children"
>> > > > but
>> > > > > > the
>> > > > > > > children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about
>when
>> > > > > "mothers'
>> > > > > > > payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
>> > > month.
>> > > > > > ==
>> > > > > > Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
>> > statistics
>> > > > to
>> > > > > > back assertions and for equal protection rights?
>> > > > > > So tell me:
>> > > > > > 1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of
>welfare
>> > > > mothers
>> > > > > > on drugs?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
>> and
>> > > > > you'll get results like this:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
>> and
>> > > > > alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to
>their
>> > > abuse
>> > > > > and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
>> > welfare
>> > > > > mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports
>50%
>> > of
>> > > > > welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > 2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
>> drugs
>> > > is
>> > > > a
>> > > > > > greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
>> > > > >
>> > > > > My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
>> > abuse
>> > > > and
>> > > > > neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
>> abuse.
>> > > One
>> > > > > of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
>> involvement
>> > > of
>> > > > > welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money
>and
>> > > drugs
>> > > > to
>> > > > > support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference
>I
>> > > posted
>> > > > > above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
>> mother
>> > > drug
>> > > > > and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
>> > > > ==
>> > > > That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which
>I
>> > > have
>> > > > not read and I presume you have not read):
>> > > >
>> > > > The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No
>safe
>> > > haven:
>> > > > Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.
>> > > >
>> > > > There is no indication that this article states that these parents
>are
>> > > *on*
>> > > > state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
>> > > "child
>> > > > welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
>> state
>> > > > "child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from
>Donna
>> > > > Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:
>> > > >
>> > > > "Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
>> > > children,
>> > > > we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
>> > licenses,
>> > > > track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
>> what
>> > > you
>> > > > owe.
>> > > >
>> > > > That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."
>> > > >
>> > > > How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family
>court
>> > mess
>> > > > we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
>> these
>> > > > "statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
>> > > > ==
>> > > > ==
>> > >
>> > > When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
>> refer
>> > > to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
>> referring
>> > to
>> > > what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public
>money
>> > > being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how
>many
>> > > children they have and their level of need.
>> > >
>> > > This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
>> alcohol
>> > > and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.
>> > >
>> > > Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
>> may
>> > be
>> > > right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
>> of
>> > > liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the
>mothers.
>> > The
>> > > liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium
>on
>> > welf
>> > > are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
>> welfare
>> > > standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of
>character
>> > for
>> > > liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
>> > mothers
>> > > need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
>> > > development.
>> > ===
>> > I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
>> > skepticism--
>> > Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or
>what
>> > agenda they are
>> > attempting to bolster. That is the
>> > normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
>> > interest group.
>> > I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
>> > unfortunately
>> > (or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
>> > researching/interpreting data.
>> > In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that
>are
>> > used to assert that
>> > uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
>> only
>> > in a very small fraction of cases.
>> > Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
>> > comparatively tiny amount of government waste
>> > and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than
>it
>> > should be violated based on gender.
>> > Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
>> > ===
>> > ===
>>
>> Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th
>amendment
>> prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a
>group
>> of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
>> the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
>> unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
>> ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
>> protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not
>the
>> intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
>> government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
>> (like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
>> challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
>> government define a class.
>>
>> My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way
>they
>> want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
>> establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare
>benefits.
>> IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
>> qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the
>protected
>> class because of their personal lifestyle choices.
>==
>But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering substances
>before we give them their welfare checks?

....because their checks aren't "for the children"....

Mel Gamble

gini52
August 17th 03, 03:28 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote
> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>
> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> >> ...
.............................
> >==
> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
substances
> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>
> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
==
Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in the
the "best interest of the children,"
so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
basis of gender for
"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh
yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
==
==
>
> Mel Gamble

gini52
August 17th 03, 03:28 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote
> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>
> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >>
> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> >> ...
.............................
> >==
> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
substances
> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>
> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
==
Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in the
the "best interest of the children,"
so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
basis of gender for
"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh
yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
==
==
>
> Mel Gamble

Chris Owens
August 17th 03, 04:23 PM
Tiffany wrote:
>
> > This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
> > whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
> > safety, and public safety.'
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> And that simply will work, eh? Sure. :)
>
> T

No, not so as I've noticed. However, you do need to raise the
issue, and in a civil manner. Then, if he blows his top, you can
make alternative transportation arrangements for the kid. OTOH,
you never know, reason just might prevail. I have a cousin who
is WAY too fond of beer; but, to his credit, he has never drunk
one in front of a child, nor will he get in a car to drive when
he's been drinking. All of us in the family are perfectly
willing to trust our kids with him, therefore.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Chris Owens
August 17th 03, 04:23 PM
Tiffany wrote:
>
> > This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
> > whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
> > safety, and public safety.'
> >
> > Chris Owens
> >
> >
> And that simply will work, eh? Sure. :)
>
> T

No, not so as I've noticed. However, you do need to raise the
issue, and in a civil manner. Then, if he blows his top, you can
make alternative transportation arrangements for the kid. OTOH,
you never know, reason just might prevail. I have a cousin who
is WAY too fond of beer; but, to his credit, he has never drunk
one in front of a child, nor will he get in a car to drive when
he's been drinking. All of us in the family are perfectly
willing to trust our kids with him, therefore.

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 05:47 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
> > But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
> >
> > >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >>
> > >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> ............................
> > >==
> > >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
> substances
> > >before we give them their welfare checks?
> >
> > ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
> ==
> Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
the
> the "best interest of the children,"
> so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
> basis of gender for
> "the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
Oh
> yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
> Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
> ==
> ==

Well if NOW has come out in favor of means tested welfare benefits based on
drug screenings because drug use leads to child neglect and abuse by
mothers, then I am on the same side as NOW. But I doubt NOW will get
anywhere near that kind of position.

The equal protection and immunities clause in the 14th amendment scrutinizes
benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular
class rather than discrimination against a particular class. Under the
equal-privileges doctrine the classification must be based on the personal
or social characteristics of the asserted "class." The way the state
appellate and state supreme courts get around the tricky situation of
providing benefits to a class like mothers who are definitely receiving
privileges and immunities (welfare) because of their class is to use the
"rational basis." They reason the legislature had a rational basis for
creating the law based on the distinction of the class involved, and claim
that makes the law constitutional.

Bob Whiteside
August 17th 03, 05:47 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
> > But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
> >
> > >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >>
> > >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> ............................
> > >==
> > >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
> substances
> > >before we give them their welfare checks?
> >
> > ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
> ==
> Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
the
> the "best interest of the children,"
> so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
> basis of gender for
> "the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
Oh
> yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
> Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
> ==
> ==

Well if NOW has come out in favor of means tested welfare benefits based on
drug screenings because drug use leads to child neglect and abuse by
mothers, then I am on the same side as NOW. But I doubt NOW will get
anywhere near that kind of position.

The equal protection and immunities clause in the 14th amendment scrutinizes
benefits in the form of privileges and immunities given to a particular
class rather than discrimination against a particular class. Under the
equal-privileges doctrine the classification must be based on the personal
or social characteristics of the asserted "class." The way the state
appellate and state supreme courts get around the tricky situation of
providing benefits to a class like mothers who are definitely receiving
privileges and immunities (welfare) because of their class is to use the
"rational basis." They reason the legislature had a rational basis for
creating the law based on the distinction of the class involved, and claim
that makes the law constitutional.

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:53 PM
Chris Owens > wrote in message
...
> Tiffany wrote:
> >
> > > This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
> > > whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
> > > safety, and public safety.'
> > >
> > > Chris Owens
> > >
> > >
> > And that simply will work, eh? Sure. :)
> >
> > T
>
> No, not so as I've noticed. However, you do need to raise the
> issue, and in a civil manner. Then, if he blows his top, you can
> make alternative transportation arrangements for the kid. OTOH,
> you never know, reason just might prevail. I have a cousin who
> is WAY too fond of beer; but, to his credit, he has never drunk
> one in front of a child, nor will he get in a car to drive when
> he's been drinking. All of us in the family are perfectly
> willing to trust our kids with him, therefore.
>
> Chris Owens
>
>


Oh I agree that it should be mentioned in a civil manner. I know lots of
folks who love drinking but have enough sense to not drink when driving. I
also know alot of folks with no sense.

Tiffany
August 17th 03, 11:53 PM
Chris Owens > wrote in message
...
> Tiffany wrote:
> >
> > > This one's easy: 'I expect that you will not drink and drive
> > > whilst you have our daughter in your care, for your saftey, her
> > > safety, and public safety.'
> > >
> > > Chris Owens
> > >
> > >
> > And that simply will work, eh? Sure. :)
> >
> > T
>
> No, not so as I've noticed. However, you do need to raise the
> issue, and in a civil manner. Then, if he blows his top, you can
> make alternative transportation arrangements for the kid. OTOH,
> you never know, reason just might prevail. I have a cousin who
> is WAY too fond of beer; but, to his credit, he has never drunk
> one in front of a child, nor will he get in a car to drive when
> he's been drinking. All of us in the family are perfectly
> willing to trust our kids with him, therefore.
>
> Chris Owens
>
>


Oh I agree that it should be mentioned in a civil manner. I know lots of
folks who love drinking but have enough sense to not drink when driving. I
also know alot of folks with no sense.

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:41 AM
Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely different
government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to hire
accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order to
collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the poor
CEO's???

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>>
>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>............................
>> >==
>> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
>substances
>> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>>
>> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
>==
>Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in the
>the "best interest of the children,"
>so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
>basis of gender for
>"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh
>yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
>Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
>==
>==
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 18th 03, 09:41 AM
Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely different
government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to hire
accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order to
collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the poor
CEO's???

Mel Gamble

>"Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>>
>> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>> >>
>> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>............................
>> >==
>> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
>substances
>> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>>
>> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
>==
>Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in the
>the "best interest of the children,"
>so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
>basis of gender for
>"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh
>yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
>Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
>==
>==
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>
>

gini52
August 18th 03, 04:52 PM
"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> valid point here.
>
> Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
==
Thanks Kenneth--I'm glad someone with a voice of reason finally spoke up.
What Mel and Bob are overlooking is that in our rule of law, decisions are
made on precedent
(well, supposedly) so when one allows discrimination on the one hand
(against welfare moms--"in the best interest of the chilkdren" ), the
precedent is established to allow it on the other hand (against
NCP/dads--"in the best interest of the children").
(More below for Mel)
==
>
>
>
> Mel Gamble wrote:
> >
> > Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
different
> > government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
> > different programs?
==
So Mel, then it's OK with you to waste billions in tax dollars on corporate
welfare
as long as we don't waste a fraction of that on welfare moms? That makes
sense
(wink wink). Mel, you didn't happen to work for Enron did you?
==
==

gini52
August 18th 03, 04:52 PM
"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> valid point here.
>
> Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
==
Thanks Kenneth--I'm glad someone with a voice of reason finally spoke up.
What Mel and Bob are overlooking is that in our rule of law, decisions are
made on precedent
(well, supposedly) so when one allows discrimination on the one hand
(against welfare moms--"in the best interest of the chilkdren" ), the
precedent is established to allow it on the other hand (against
NCP/dads--"in the best interest of the children").
(More below for Mel)
==
>
>
>
> Mel Gamble wrote:
> >
> > Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
different
> > government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
> > different programs?
==
So Mel, then it's OK with you to waste billions in tax dollars on corporate
welfare
as long as we don't waste a fraction of that on welfare moms? That makes
sense
(wink wink). Mel, you didn't happen to work for Enron did you?
==
==

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 07:35 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> > valid point here.
> >
> > Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> > account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> > and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> > doesn't enter into the equation.
> >
> > There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> > officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> > money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> > money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
> ==
> Thanks Kenneth--I'm glad someone with a voice of reason finally spoke up.
> What Mel and Bob are overlooking is that in our rule of law, decisions are
> made on precedent
> (well, supposedly) so when one allows discrimination on the one hand
> (against welfare moms--"in the best interest of the chilkdren" ), the
> precedent is established to allow it on the other hand (against
> NCP/dads--"in the best interest of the children").
> (More below for Mel)
> ==

Let me try one more time to get my point across. Equal protection under the
14th amendment prevents state government from proving privileges or
immunities TO a special class. It does not (even though most people believe
it does) protect a class AGAINST discrimination. The Dred Scott decision is
the most famous case law. That decision said the states could not give
citizenship to whites, but not other racial groups.

I view welfare as a violation of the 14th amendment because it provides
benefits to a special class. And I see no reason why the government cannot
have means tested welfare criteria as long as due process is followed.

Bob Whiteside
August 18th 03, 07:35 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> > valid point here.
> >
> > Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> > account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> > and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> > doesn't enter into the equation.
> >
> > There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> > officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> > money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> > money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
> ==
> Thanks Kenneth--I'm glad someone with a voice of reason finally spoke up.
> What Mel and Bob are overlooking is that in our rule of law, decisions are
> made on precedent
> (well, supposedly) so when one allows discrimination on the one hand
> (against welfare moms--"in the best interest of the chilkdren" ), the
> precedent is established to allow it on the other hand (against
> NCP/dads--"in the best interest of the children").
> (More below for Mel)
> ==

Let me try one more time to get my point across. Equal protection under the
14th amendment prevents state government from proving privileges or
immunities TO a special class. It does not (even though most people believe
it does) protect a class AGAINST discrimination. The Dred Scott decision is
the most famous case law. That decision said the states could not give
citizenship to whites, but not other racial groups.

I view welfare as a violation of the 14th amendment because it provides
benefits to a special class. And I see no reason why the government cannot
have means tested welfare criteria as long as due process is followed.

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:42 AM
>I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
>valid point here.

Why would you say that, Kenneth??? I'm serious - there's little or no
accountability for CP welfare, either. I'd be willing to bet there is far more
accountability tied to corporate welfare. And I'd be willing to bet that far
more detail about the current situation is required of the corporation going
after government money than is required of CP's going after government money.
Corporations have to make all kinds of promises to get their welfare, and make
good on them - CP's getting welfare don't even have to promise to feed their
kids...it's just assumed they'll use the money as intended.

I don't see a problem with making sure that if the government is giving people
money to take care of their kids, those people are doing a good job of taking
care of those kids...and parents who are abusing drugs and alcohol probably
AREN'T doing what we're giving them the money for.

Mel Gamble

> Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
>account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
>and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
>doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
>officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
>money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
>money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
>
>
>
>Mel Gamble wrote:
>>
>> Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
>different
>> government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
>> different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to
>hire
>> accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order
>to
>> collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the
>poor
>> CEO's???
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> >> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>> >>
>> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >............................
>> >> >==
>> >> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
>> >substances
>> >> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>> >>
>> >> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
>> >==
>> >Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
>the
>> >the "best interest of the children,"
>> >so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
>> >basis of gender for
>> >"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
>Oh
>> >yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
>> >Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
>> >==
>> >==
>> >>
>> >> Mel Gamble

Mel Gamble
August 19th 03, 10:42 AM
>I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
>valid point here.

Why would you say that, Kenneth??? I'm serious - there's little or no
accountability for CP welfare, either. I'd be willing to bet there is far more
accountability tied to corporate welfare. And I'd be willing to bet that far
more detail about the current situation is required of the corporation going
after government money than is required of CP's going after government money.
Corporations have to make all kinds of promises to get their welfare, and make
good on them - CP's getting welfare don't even have to promise to feed their
kids...it's just assumed they'll use the money as intended.

I don't see a problem with making sure that if the government is giving people
money to take care of their kids, those people are doing a good job of taking
care of those kids...and parents who are abusing drugs and alcohol probably
AREN'T doing what we're giving them the money for.

Mel Gamble

> Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
>account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
>and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
>doesn't enter into the equation.
>
> There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
>officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
>money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
>money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
>
>
>
>Mel Gamble wrote:
>>
>> Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
>different
>> government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
>> different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to
>hire
>> accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order
>to
>> collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the
>poor
>> CEO's???
>>
>> Mel Gamble
>>
>> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> >> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
>> >>
>> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
>> >> ink.net...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >............................
>> >> >==
>> >> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
>> >substances
>> >> >before we give them their welfare checks?
>> >>
>> >> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
>> >==
>> >Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
>the
>> >the "best interest of the children,"
>> >so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
>> >basis of gender for
>> >"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
>Oh
>> >yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
>> >Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
>> >==
>> >==
>> >>
>> >> Mel Gamble

Kenneth S.
August 19th 03, 02:29 PM
Mel:

I don't want to go off at a tangent into corporate welfare. In the
first place, it's nothing to do with this news group. Secondly, I have
no recent knowledge of what's going on. I will just say this: it used
to be the case that various major multinational corporations were
getting obscure subsidies from U.S. taxpayers under the guise of such
things as providing incentives for research, but there was little
supervision of where the money was going. I doubt very much whether the
situation has changed in recent years.

My point is simple, and one that I think is crucial to understanding
developments in so-called "child support" matters. What happens in
government in the U.S. has very little to do with fine abstract
principles. However, it has A LOT to do with crude political forces.
Why do corporations get welfare with no effective strings attached?
Because corporations have influential lobbyists in Washington. And why
do fathers get screwed in family law matters? Because fathers have no
political clout and, on top of that, belong to one of the few remaining
official scapegoat groups in the U.S., heterosexual men.

Mel Gamble wrote:
>
> >I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> >valid point here.
>
> Why would you say that, Kenneth??? I'm serious - there's little or no
> accountability for CP welfare, either. I'd be willing to bet there is far more
> accountability tied to corporate welfare. And I'd be willing to bet that far
> more detail about the current situation is required of the corporation going
> after government money than is required of CP's going after government money.
> Corporations have to make all kinds of promises to get their welfare, and make
> good on them - CP's getting welfare don't even have to promise to feed their
> kids...it's just assumed they'll use the money as intended.
>
> I don't see a problem with making sure that if the government is giving people
> money to take care of their kids, those people are doing a good job of taking
> care of those kids...and parents who are abusing drugs and alcohol probably
> AREN'T doing what we're giving them the money for.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> > Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> >account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> >and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> >doesn't enter into the equation.
> >
> > There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> >officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> >money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> >money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
> >
> >
> >
> >Mel Gamble wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
> >different
> >> government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
> >> different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to
> >hire
> >> accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order
> >to
> >> collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the
> >poor
> >> CEO's???
> >>
> >> Mel Gamble
> >>
> >> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote
> >> >> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> >> ink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >............................
> >> >> >==
> >> >> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
> >> >substances
> >> >> >before we give them their welfare checks?
> >> >>
> >> >> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
> >> >==
> >> >Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
> >the
> >> >the "best interest of the children,"
> >> >so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
> >> >basis of gender for
> >> >"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
> >Oh
> >> >yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
> >> >Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
> >> >==
> >> >==
> >> >>
> >> >> Mel Gamble

Kenneth S.
August 19th 03, 02:29 PM
Mel:

I don't want to go off at a tangent into corporate welfare. In the
first place, it's nothing to do with this news group. Secondly, I have
no recent knowledge of what's going on. I will just say this: it used
to be the case that various major multinational corporations were
getting obscure subsidies from U.S. taxpayers under the guise of such
things as providing incentives for research, but there was little
supervision of where the money was going. I doubt very much whether the
situation has changed in recent years.

My point is simple, and one that I think is crucial to understanding
developments in so-called "child support" matters. What happens in
government in the U.S. has very little to do with fine abstract
principles. However, it has A LOT to do with crude political forces.
Why do corporations get welfare with no effective strings attached?
Because corporations have influential lobbyists in Washington. And why
do fathers get screwed in family law matters? Because fathers have no
political clout and, on top of that, belong to one of the few remaining
official scapegoat groups in the U.S., heterosexual men.

Mel Gamble wrote:
>
> >I realize that you're joking around with this, Mel, but there IS a
> >valid point here.
>
> Why would you say that, Kenneth??? I'm serious - there's little or no
> accountability for CP welfare, either. I'd be willing to bet there is far more
> accountability tied to corporate welfare. And I'd be willing to bet that far
> more detail about the current situation is required of the corporation going
> after government money than is required of CP's going after government money.
> Corporations have to make all kinds of promises to get their welfare, and make
> good on them - CP's getting welfare don't even have to promise to feed their
> kids...it's just assumed they'll use the money as intended.
>
> I don't see a problem with making sure that if the government is giving people
> money to take care of their kids, those people are doing a good job of taking
> care of those kids...and parents who are abusing drugs and alcohol probably
> AREN'T doing what we're giving them the money for.
>
> Mel Gamble
>
> > Whether or not the recipients of government or private largess have to
> >account for the money depends almost entirely on who's paying the money
> >and who's getting it. The validity of the case for accountability
> >doesn't enter into the equation.
> >
> > There's no accountability for "child support" because fathers (an
> >officially designated scapegoat group in the U.S.) are forced to pay the
> >money to their exes. The rules would be entirely different if the
> >money were coming out of the pockets of some group with political clout.
> >
> >
> >
> >Mel Gamble wrote:
> >>
> >> Oh c'mon, Gini, family welfare and "corporate welfare" are entirely
> >different
> >> government programs - why shouldn't there be different restrictions on
> >> different programs? And I'm sure welfare mothers/fathers don't have to
> >hire
> >> accountants and publicly display their finances down to the penny in order
> >to
> >> collect their welfare - wouldn't you call that discriminating against the
> >poor
> >> CEO's???
> >>
> >> Mel Gamble
> >>
> >> >"Mel Gamble" > wrote
> >> >> But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> >> >> ink.net...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> "gini52" > wrote in message
> >> >> >> ...
> >> >............................
> >> >> >==
> >> >> >But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
> >> >substances
> >> >> >before we give them their welfare checks?
> >> >>
> >> >> ...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
> >> >==
> >> >Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in
> >the
> >> >the "best interest of the children,"
> >> >so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
> >> >basis of gender for
> >> >"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before?
> >Oh
> >> >yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
> >> >Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
> >> >==
> >> >==
> >> >>
> >> >> Mel Gamble

Bob Whiteside
August 19th 03, 06:02 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
> ..........................
> >
> > What is "discrimination" when you're insisting that someone wishing to
> take
> > part in a government program meet some requirements to qualify? It's
done
> all
> > the time.
> ===
> If drug testing is a requirement for welfare moms receiving benefits, it
> should be
> required of all persons receiving benefits. Surely you aren't suggesting
> that a repeated
> action by the government proves the action's legitimacy are you ,Mel?
> You really don't want to go there do you? ;-)
> ===

92% of welfare recipients are mothers. the other 8% who are fathers should
be tested too.

Mel and I live in a state that has secured federal welfare-reform waivers.
Our state already places means tested requirements on all welfare
recipients. Our state requires all people on welfare to work toward
self-sufficiency. We have increased sanctions for non-cooperation. We
require teen parents on welfare to live in a safe place. We have a medical
payment recovery program that identifies and recovers medical overpayments
made to public assistance clients. We have an overpayment recovery program
that places liens on personal-injury settlement awards. We have third-party
recovery programs to examine how medical costs are reimbursed and by whom.
We require welfare clients to identify the child's other parent and sign
over CS and spousal support rights to the state.

Our state is coming at the drug and alcohol problem by requiring progress
towards self-sufficiency. Adding drug testing into the mix will only
strengthen the state's stated goal to move welfare recipients towards
self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Right now we provide them training
and treatment to deal with their addictions. The problem is these people
have to self-select to receive this program. Drug testing would make it
mandatory.

Bob Whiteside
August 19th 03, 06:02 PM
"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
> ..........................
> >
> > What is "discrimination" when you're insisting that someone wishing to
> take
> > part in a government program meet some requirements to qualify? It's
done
> all
> > the time.
> ===
> If drug testing is a requirement for welfare moms receiving benefits, it
> should be
> required of all persons receiving benefits. Surely you aren't suggesting
> that a repeated
> action by the government proves the action's legitimacy are you ,Mel?
> You really don't want to go there do you? ;-)
> ===

92% of welfare recipients are mothers. the other 8% who are fathers should
be tested too.

Mel and I live in a state that has secured federal welfare-reform waivers.
Our state already places means tested requirements on all welfare
recipients. Our state requires all people on welfare to work toward
self-sufficiency. We have increased sanctions for non-cooperation. We
require teen parents on welfare to live in a safe place. We have a medical
payment recovery program that identifies and recovers medical overpayments
made to public assistance clients. We have an overpayment recovery program
that places liens on personal-injury settlement awards. We have third-party
recovery programs to examine how medical costs are reimbursed and by whom.
We require welfare clients to identify the child's other parent and sign
over CS and spousal support rights to the state.

Our state is coming at the drug and alcohol problem by requiring progress
towards self-sufficiency. Adding drug testing into the mix will only
strengthen the state's stated goal to move welfare recipients towards
self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Right now we provide them training
and treatment to deal with their addictions. The problem is these people
have to self-select to receive this program. Drug testing would make it
mandatory.

Mel Gamble
August 20th 03, 12:18 PM
But that's not what she's talking about, Bob...

>"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> ..........................
>> >
>> > What is "discrimination" when you're insisting that someone wishing to
>> take
>> > part in a government program meet some requirements to qualify? It's
>done
>> all
>> > the time.
>> ===
>> If drug testing is a requirement for welfare moms receiving benefits, it
>> should be
>> required of all persons receiving benefits. Surely you aren't suggesting
>> that a repeated
>> action by the government proves the action's legitimacy are you ,Mel?
>> You really don't want to go there do you? ;-)
>> ===
>
>92% of welfare recipients are mothers. the other 8% who are fathers should
>be tested too.

She's talking about testing CEO's of corporations receiving "corporate
welfare". Honestly, that's what she's saying. And that failure to do so would
make the drug testing of welfare recipients "discriminatory" because the CEO's
wouldn't be subject to the same requirements for their "welfare" as the welfare
mothers.

I just don't know where she's coming from. How many dependents do you have to
have to get a $200-million "welfare check"? Should Chrysler have been forced
to take some of their government held in the form of surplus cheese????

Mel Gamble

>Mel and I live in a state that has secured federal welfare-reform waivers.
>Our state already places means tested requirements on all welfare
>recipients. Our state requires all people on welfare to work toward
>self-sufficiency. We have increased sanctions for non-cooperation. We
>require teen parents on welfare to live in a safe place. We have a medical
>payment recovery program that identifies and recovers medical overpayments
>made to public assistance clients. We have an overpayment recovery program
>that places liens on personal-injury settlement awards. We have third-party
>recovery programs to examine how medical costs are reimbursed and by whom.
>We require welfare clients to identify the child's other parent and sign
>over CS and spousal support rights to the state.
>
>Our state is coming at the drug and alcohol problem by requiring progress
>towards self-sufficiency. Adding drug testing into the mix will only
>strengthen the state's stated goal to move welfare recipients towards
>self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Right now we provide them training
>and treatment to deal with their addictions. The problem is these people
>have to self-select to receive this program. Drug testing would make it
>mandatory.
>
>
>
>

Mel Gamble
August 20th 03, 12:18 PM
But that's not what she's talking about, Bob...

>"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Mel Gamble" > wrote
>> ..........................
>> >
>> > What is "discrimination" when you're insisting that someone wishing to
>> take
>> > part in a government program meet some requirements to qualify? It's
>done
>> all
>> > the time.
>> ===
>> If drug testing is a requirement for welfare moms receiving benefits, it
>> should be
>> required of all persons receiving benefits. Surely you aren't suggesting
>> that a repeated
>> action by the government proves the action's legitimacy are you ,Mel?
>> You really don't want to go there do you? ;-)
>> ===
>
>92% of welfare recipients are mothers. the other 8% who are fathers should
>be tested too.

She's talking about testing CEO's of corporations receiving "corporate
welfare". Honestly, that's what she's saying. And that failure to do so would
make the drug testing of welfare recipients "discriminatory" because the CEO's
wouldn't be subject to the same requirements for their "welfare" as the welfare
mothers.

I just don't know where she's coming from. How many dependents do you have to
have to get a $200-million "welfare check"? Should Chrysler have been forced
to take some of their government held in the form of surplus cheese????

Mel Gamble

>Mel and I live in a state that has secured federal welfare-reform waivers.
>Our state already places means tested requirements on all welfare
>recipients. Our state requires all people on welfare to work toward
>self-sufficiency. We have increased sanctions for non-cooperation. We
>require teen parents on welfare to live in a safe place. We have a medical
>payment recovery program that identifies and recovers medical overpayments
>made to public assistance clients. We have an overpayment recovery program
>that places liens on personal-injury settlement awards. We have third-party
>recovery programs to examine how medical costs are reimbursed and by whom.
>We require welfare clients to identify the child's other parent and sign
>over CS and spousal support rights to the state.
>
>Our state is coming at the drug and alcohol problem by requiring progress
>towards self-sufficiency. Adding drug testing into the mix will only
>strengthen the state's stated goal to move welfare recipients towards
>self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Right now we provide them training
>and treatment to deal with their addictions. The problem is these people
>have to self-select to receive this program. Drug testing would make it
>mandatory.
>
>
>
>

Bob Whiteside
August 20th 03, 06:39 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> That makes about as much sense as saying that welfare moms should have
proof of
> their military service, since there are government programs where that is
a
> requirement in order to receive the benefits. Or saying that welfare moms
> should be forced to hire an independent accounting firm to "do their
books"
> like the corporations are forced to do in order to get their handouts....

This response got me thinking. Do welfare mothers have to prove the child
really exists and is really their own child to collect welfare? What
requirements are placed on women to show they met the most basic of all
welfare entry requirements? Could they be using each others babies to
multiply their welfare payments into bigger paydays?

Bob Whiteside
August 20th 03, 06:39 PM
"Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
...
> That makes about as much sense as saying that welfare moms should have
proof of
> their military service, since there are government programs where that is
a
> requirement in order to receive the benefits. Or saying that welfare moms
> should be forced to hire an independent accounting firm to "do their
books"
> like the corporations are forced to do in order to get their handouts....

This response got me thinking. Do welfare mothers have to prove the child
really exists and is really their own child to collect welfare? What
requirements are placed on women to show they met the most basic of all
welfare entry requirements? Could they be using each others babies to
multiply their welfare payments into bigger paydays?

Tracy
August 21st 03, 04:05 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That makes about as much sense as saying that welfare moms should have
> proof of
> > their military service, since there are government programs where that
is
> a
> > requirement in order to receive the benefits. Or saying that welfare
moms
> > should be forced to hire an independent accounting firm to "do their
> books"
> > like the corporations are forced to do in order to get their
handouts....
>
> This response got me thinking. Do welfare mothers have to prove the child
> really exists and is really their own child to collect welfare? What
> requirements are placed on women to show they met the most basic of all
> welfare entry requirements? Could they be using each others babies to
> multiply their welfare payments into bigger paydays?


Probably not to your satisfaction, but yes a parent receiving public aid
must "prove" their child exists. They must show a social security card,
birth records, and/or court document(s), to show they are responsible for
the care of the child. Prior to the days when social security cards were
required for tax purposes and/or receipt of government aid, a person
applying for government aid could "easily" claim many more children than
they actually have. Some even crossed state lines to apply for welfare in
multiple states. The government started to really crack down on such abuse
cases many years ago.

To comment on Mel's response above - when I was attending college prior to
'97 I was receiving food stamps and medical coverage for my oldest two sons.
On the forms were questions pertaining to the military service, work, and
other. They wanted to verify if the applicant is qualified for any other
types of aid before receiving public aid. I don't blame them for asking
those questions, because if someone is qualified to receive benefits under a
different program they should be receiving that before they are receiving
welfare (like unemployment, medical due to military, etc).

Now let's compare the above to working for a corporation... when my ex
applied for welfare he has never required to submit blood for a drug test.
I was required to for my current job. No one would have never been denied
welfare if they were in trouble with the law (couldn't pass an FBI check) -
meanwhile I had to pass an FBI check twice. Once to work for the school
district and the other to work where I currently do. Some employers run
credit checks on you. In my opinion - you are required to jump through many
more hoops to work in the corporate world than to receive welfare. Who
knows, perhaps some of those big time corporate criminals will be receiving
welfare someday. They'll quickly learn it is much easier to have the
government/tax-payers support you than work.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

Tracy
August 21st 03, 04:05 AM
"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Mel Gamble" > wrote in message
> ...
> > That makes about as much sense as saying that welfare moms should have
> proof of
> > their military service, since there are government programs where that
is
> a
> > requirement in order to receive the benefits. Or saying that welfare
moms
> > should be forced to hire an independent accounting firm to "do their
> books"
> > like the corporations are forced to do in order to get their
handouts....
>
> This response got me thinking. Do welfare mothers have to prove the child
> really exists and is really their own child to collect welfare? What
> requirements are placed on women to show they met the most basic of all
> welfare entry requirements? Could they be using each others babies to
> multiply their welfare payments into bigger paydays?


Probably not to your satisfaction, but yes a parent receiving public aid
must "prove" their child exists. They must show a social security card,
birth records, and/or court document(s), to show they are responsible for
the care of the child. Prior to the days when social security cards were
required for tax purposes and/or receipt of government aid, a person
applying for government aid could "easily" claim many more children than
they actually have. Some even crossed state lines to apply for welfare in
multiple states. The government started to really crack down on such abuse
cases many years ago.

To comment on Mel's response above - when I was attending college prior to
'97 I was receiving food stamps and medical coverage for my oldest two sons.
On the forms were questions pertaining to the military service, work, and
other. They wanted to verify if the applicant is qualified for any other
types of aid before receiving public aid. I don't blame them for asking
those questions, because if someone is qualified to receive benefits under a
different program they should be receiving that before they are receiving
welfare (like unemployment, medical due to military, etc).

Now let's compare the above to working for a corporation... when my ex
applied for welfare he has never required to submit blood for a drug test.
I was required to for my current job. No one would have never been denied
welfare if they were in trouble with the law (couldn't pass an FBI check) -
meanwhile I had to pass an FBI check twice. Once to work for the school
district and the other to work where I currently do. Some employers run
credit checks on you. In my opinion - you are required to jump through many
more hoops to work in the corporate world than to receive welfare. Who
knows, perhaps some of those big time corporate criminals will be receiving
welfare someday. They'll quickly learn it is much easier to have the
government/tax-payers support you than work.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***