WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

[[email protected]]

I always thought it was for rasing the child. But thay want you to pay
xtra for /daycare / Insureance /and anything else they think is xtra/. I
always here its your half Well were is the half on me rasing my daughter
as a ncp or (atm) you have zero say so or input into your child life.
ncp need to get there head out of there ass and start changing the laws
because as long as the goverment can put us down and make us look like a
bunch of dead beats to get votes.Its only going to get alot worst were
not only fighting for our rights were fighting for the lives of our
children. More or less our goverment is telling our children you dont
have to do what your ncp tells you and also you dont have to do what cp
tells you ether just call us and we will drag them though hell and back
so you well louse all respect for them.(Remember there just your parents
were the goverment were always right)

[chillin']

I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.

Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
running for the office of the President of the United States and her
agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
(Remember this on election day).

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[chillin']

I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.

Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
running for the office of the President of the United States and her
agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
(Remember this on election day).

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[Lecher9000]

I think you have a pretty good grasp of what "child support" is. It's hard to
believe that the U.S. a supposedly "self-reliant" and "work for your money"
place, has come to this. It's like Communism.

[Lecher9000]

I think you have a pretty good grasp of what "child support" is. It's hard to
believe that the U.S. a supposedly "self-reliant" and "work for your money"
place, has come to this. It's like Communism.

[Dave]

You are correct sir, in that they are denying the rights of millions of
fathers and children across the US in blatant disregard for the laws of
freedom for which this nation was founded. Unfortunately the masses in this
country are just as ignorant to what America has become in the same way as
the Germans were in the 1920s with the rise of Nazism.

I agree that the thought of Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean or any of these
left wing Marxist lunatics being in power as they are now is scary. The
Republican party however is just as responsible in selling out fathers and
has moved just as far to the left into Marxist territory that the party is
unrecognizable to its actual political platform. The myth that the
Republican party is actually conservative is a myth that only exists in the
liberal media and not in reality.

I only hope the sheeple in this country wake and realize it is time for a
major change, since both political parties are made up of global elites that
could careless about this country or of trampling the rights of the average
American.

"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...
> I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
> better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
> thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
> raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
> keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
> be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
> the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
> food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
> provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
> should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
> living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
> he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
> cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
> either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
> afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
> then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
> simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
> takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
> or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
> assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.
>
> Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
> whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
> taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
> one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
> unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
> running for the office of the President of the United States and her
> agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
> under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
> and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
> enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
> mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
> acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
> pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
> alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
> women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
> double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
> more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
> demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
> raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
> drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
> today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
> because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
> has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
> democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
> socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
> America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
> (Remember this on election day).
>
> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.
>
> Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
> cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
> children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
> need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
> independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
> the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
> trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
> ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
> being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[Dave]

You are correct sir, in that they are denying the rights of millions of
fathers and children across the US in blatant disregard for the laws of
freedom for which this nation was founded. Unfortunately the masses in this
country are just as ignorant to what America has become in the same way as
the Germans were in the 1920s with the rise of Nazism.

I agree that the thought of Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean or any of these
left wing Marxist lunatics being in power as they are now is scary. The
Republican party however is just as responsible in selling out fathers and
has moved just as far to the left into Marxist territory that the party is
unrecognizable to its actual political platform. The myth that the
Republican party is actually conservative is a myth that only exists in the
liberal media and not in reality.

I only hope the sheeple in this country wake and realize it is time for a
major change, since both political parties are made up of global elites that
could careless about this country or of trampling the rights of the average
American.

"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...
> I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
> better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
> thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
> raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
> keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
> be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
> the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
> food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
> provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
> should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
> living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
> he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
> cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
> either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
> afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
> then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
> simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
> takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
> or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
> assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.
>
> Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
> whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
> taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
> one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
> unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
> running for the office of the President of the United States and her
> agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
> under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
> and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
> enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
> mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
> acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
> pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
> alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
> women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
> double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
> more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
> demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
> raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
> drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
> today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
> because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
> has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
> democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
> socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
> America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
> (Remember this on election day).
>
> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.
>
> Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
> cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
> children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
> need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
> independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
> the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
> trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
> ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
> being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[Dave]

"Lecher9000" > wrote in message
...
> I think you have a pretty good grasp of what "child support" is. It's
hard to
> believe that the U.S. a supposedly "self-reliant" and "work for your
money"
> place, has come to this. It's like Communism.

It is no coincidence that it is like Communism. The Percentage-of-Income
approach has its origin in old Soviet Russian law. It was first implemented
in Wisconsin by then Republican governor and founding father of the
US-Communist child support system, Tommy Thompson.

His lead researcher, Irwin Garfinkel modeled the child support system after
social-economic policies from communist countries and repackaged them as
conservative policy. His package became "The Wisconsin Model," which became
the national model for welfare reform. It was adopted by most states after
propaganda stories of success.

Thompson now serves as HHS in the Bush administration. Fathers are clearly
not represented by either political party and desperately need to organize a
political action.

[Dave]

"Lecher9000" > wrote in message
...
> I think you have a pretty good grasp of what "child support" is. It's
hard to
> believe that the U.S. a supposedly "self-reliant" and "work for your
money"
> place, has come to this. It's like Communism.

It is no coincidence that it is like Communism. The Percentage-of-Income
approach has its origin in old Soviet Russian law. It was first implemented
in Wisconsin by then Republican governor and founding father of the
US-Communist child support system, Tommy Thompson.

His lead researcher, Irwin Garfinkel modeled the child support system after
social-economic policies from communist countries and repackaged them as
conservative policy. His package became "The Wisconsin Model," which became
the national model for welfare reform. It was adopted by most states after
propaganda stories of success.

Thompson now serves as HHS in the Bush administration. Fathers are clearly
not represented by either political party and desperately need to organize a
political action.

[PapaPolarbear]

"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...

> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.

Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would not
work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This model
died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of support
is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in both
incomes.

There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this by
doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
evade the responsibility to pay CS.

There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything in
thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the systems
that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
criminals.

The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents are
being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds be
pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be considered
a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
"bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
any deposit would be re-routed through this system.

This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are cursing
about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP lives
in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes for
the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses. The
social worker has the say.

The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
$20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours of
assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might get
a credit when they fisih the CS process.

These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...

> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.

Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would not
work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This model
died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of support
is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in both
incomes.

There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this by
doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
evade the responsibility to pay CS.

There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything in
thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the systems
that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
criminals.

The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents are
being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds be
pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be considered
a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
"bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
any deposit would be re-routed through this system.

This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are cursing
about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP lives
in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes for
the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses. The
social worker has the say.

The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
$20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours of
assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might get
a credit when they fisih the CS process.

These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.

Papa

[teachrmama]

Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the
remainder be returned to the parents?

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "chillin'" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> > other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> > than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> > supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> > sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> > not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> > governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> > of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> > would have you to believe.
>
> Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
> created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
> work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
> died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
> is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
> based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
> incomes.
>
> There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
> where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
> team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
> working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
> doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
> evade the responsibility to pay CS.
>
> There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
> thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
> amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
> that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
> to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
> responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
> at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
> criminals.
>
> The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
> ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
> counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
> being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
> Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
> pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
> interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
> considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
> discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
> a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
> "bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
> into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
> parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
> extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
> any deposit would be re-routed through this system.
>
> This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
> about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
> in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
> sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
> possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
> structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
> something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
> tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
> pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
> amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
> 150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
> 2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
> the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
> some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
> the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
> social worker has the say.
>
> The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
> $20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
> charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
> assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
> the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
> a credit when they fisih the CS process.
>
> These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.
>
> Papa
>
>
>

[teachrmama]

Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted, the
remainder be returned to the parents?

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "chillin'" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> > other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> > than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> > supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> > sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> > not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> > governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> > of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> > would have you to believe.
>
> Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
> created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
> work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
> died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
> is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
> based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
> incomes.
>
> There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
> where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
> team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
> working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
> doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
> evade the responsibility to pay CS.
>
> There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
> thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
> amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
> that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
> to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
> responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
> at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
> criminals.
>
> The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
> ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
> counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
> being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
> Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
> pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
> interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
> considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
> discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
> a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
> "bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
> into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
> parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
> extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
> any deposit would be re-routed through this system.
>
> This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
> about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
> in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
> sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
> possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
> structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
> something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
> tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
> pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
> amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
> 150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
> 2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
> the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
> some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
> the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
> social worker has the say.
>
> The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
> $20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
> charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
> assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
> the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
> a credit when they fisih the CS process.
>
> These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.
>
> Papa
>
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
> support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
> remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
> support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
> remainder be returned to the parents?

Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
if the technology allows it then yes.

Papa

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
> support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
> remainder be returned to the parents?

Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of
course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will
dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects
child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child
custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents
will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new
social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and
the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
children.

[Bob Whiteside]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the child
> support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
the
> remainder be returned to the parents?

Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls. Of
course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government will
dictate how people raise their children and how much the government expects
child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of child
custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The parents
will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The new
social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws and
the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
children.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
> > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
> the
> > remainder be returned to the parents?
>
> Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
> if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan
makes me very nervous!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
> > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
> the
> > remainder be returned to the parents?
>
> Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing but
> if the technology allows it then yes.

That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he never
knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children by
an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage imputed
to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great system
you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom deserve
to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living raised,
how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis gets
many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do all
of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will they
take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work? Can
they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so all
of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much power
are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of things
she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given time?
Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your plan
makes me very nervous!

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> child
> > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
> > the
> > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> >
> > Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
but
> > if the technology allows it then yes.
>
> That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
> case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
never
> knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
> for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
by
> an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
> support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
> others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
imputed
> to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
> Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
system
> you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
deserve
> to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
> working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
raised,
> how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
gets
> many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
all
> of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
they
> take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
Can
> they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
all
> of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
power
> are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
things
> she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
> clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
time?
> Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
plan
> makes me very nervous!

Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some
sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim
to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?

Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is
a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility,
there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.

the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she
received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how
much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make
one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
expenses are reasonable and justified.



Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> child
> > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
> > the
> > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> >
> > Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
but
> > if the technology allows it then yes.
>
> That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take our
> case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
never
> knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck garnished
> for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
by
> an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay child
> support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
> others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
imputed
> to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever since.
> Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
system
> you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
deserve
> to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
> working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
raised,
> how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
gets
> many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
all
> of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
they
> take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
Can
> they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
all
> of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
power
> are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
things
> she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have a
> clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
time?
> Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
plan
> makes me very nervous!

Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and some
sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no claim
to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?

Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children is
a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is flexibility,
there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.

the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money she
received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change how
much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to make
one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
expenses are reasonable and justified.



Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
> > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
> the
> > remainder be returned to the parents?
>
> Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
> government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
> under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls.
Of
> course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government
will
> dictate how people raise their children and how much the government
expects
> child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of
child
> custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The
parents
> will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
> involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
> Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The
new
> social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
> from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
> monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
> entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
> be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws
and
> the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
> inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
> Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
> children.

Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

Right now you have the fathers who are not responsible screwing it up for
the fathers that are. The fathers that aren't responsible are whining really
loud about how unfair it is that they pay for the life of a child they
created. They haven't had involvement? Oh, so what you agree'd to being a
father when you dropped trou' and had some fun.

It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service
offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge
can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a
better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see
alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people
deal with several broken systems.

If a mother has a child and MoPo find the fathers Dad at age 7 and the woman
didn't list the father, or didn't know which jerk was the father, then comes
around to the reality of being broke at the child's age 6, then the system
should not chase this guy for that first 5-6 years. If the system is
designed properly the the mother should not be able to survive on one
child's CS income alone. 4 or 5 maybe. I don't agree entirely with
equalizing the houshold incomes so that the child has a similar lifestyle if
the child never knew that lifestyle of if the lifestyle of the father is
dropped to support a better lifestyle for mom because she happens to find a
sugar-daddy boyfriend. Living somewhere for "free" or for an exceptional low
rent might be considered income for her.

I'm in this situation. My ex drives a new car, I have none; She lives in a
huge house, I live in a small apartment; She's a Community Centre worker (by
choice) after leaving a $75K job. I was out of work and hassled for the
market's abundance of workforce for two years and when I tried to work the
CS agency where I live took my licence and garnished my wages by more than
50% making my life miserable and making it's nearly too expensive to see my
daughters. based on this extremely brief summary of the current system's
design flaws for MY situation. I think change is necessary and if the
government can't think of anything but beating up all the fathers because of
those deadbeat dads that do exist. I think an alternative needs to be handed
to them.

I wnat to see change, for the betterment of the system and the people
involved. I want to support my chioldren but a fair and reasonable amount.
If the CP is not a contributing member of society I want them to suffer a
little because they are not pulling their weight. I've worked hard all my
life. When I found myself out of the technology field I worked at roadside
assistance and lived in that diesel-gulping monster 18-20 hours a day for
what amounted to minimum wage. I'm back in technology but I still see 22% of
my income going to someone who doesn't want to work. I also see the
judgement hanging on my wall that gives her a huge yearly bonus because I
tried to have the amount adjusted to a reasonable amount, If I hadn't gone
to court I would have continued to pay an amount that would be more like
40-50% of my Take-home-pay. I earned ~$7000 last year. I paid more than that
to CS. You figure it out.

So. Add your two cents. But let's find a better solution.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
child
> > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are deducted,
> the
> > remainder be returned to the parents?
>
> Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
> government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
> under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls.
Of
> course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government
will
> dictate how people raise their children and how much the government
expects
> child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of
child
> custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The
parents
> will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
> involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the 14th
> Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The
new
> social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will move
> from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
> monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly data
> entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers will
> be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws
and
> the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
> inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
> Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
> children.

Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

Right now you have the fathers who are not responsible screwing it up for
the fathers that are. The fathers that aren't responsible are whining really
loud about how unfair it is that they pay for the life of a child they
created. They haven't had involvement? Oh, so what you agree'd to being a
father when you dropped trou' and had some fun.

It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service
offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge
can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a
better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see
alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people
deal with several broken systems.

If a mother has a child and MoPo find the fathers Dad at age 7 and the woman
didn't list the father, or didn't know which jerk was the father, then comes
around to the reality of being broke at the child's age 6, then the system
should not chase this guy for that first 5-6 years. If the system is
designed properly the the mother should not be able to survive on one
child's CS income alone. 4 or 5 maybe. I don't agree entirely with
equalizing the houshold incomes so that the child has a similar lifestyle if
the child never knew that lifestyle of if the lifestyle of the father is
dropped to support a better lifestyle for mom because she happens to find a
sugar-daddy boyfriend. Living somewhere for "free" or for an exceptional low
rent might be considered income for her.

I'm in this situation. My ex drives a new car, I have none; She lives in a
huge house, I live in a small apartment; She's a Community Centre worker (by
choice) after leaving a $75K job. I was out of work and hassled for the
market's abundance of workforce for two years and when I tried to work the
CS agency where I live took my licence and garnished my wages by more than
50% making my life miserable and making it's nearly too expensive to see my
daughters. based on this extremely brief summary of the current system's
design flaws for MY situation. I think change is necessary and if the
government can't think of anything but beating up all the fathers because of
those deadbeat dads that do exist. I think an alternative needs to be handed
to them.

I wnat to see change, for the betterment of the system and the people
involved. I want to support my chioldren but a fair and reasonable amount.
If the CP is not a contributing member of society I want them to suffer a
little because they are not pulling their weight. I've worked hard all my
life. When I found myself out of the technology field I worked at roadside
assistance and lived in that diesel-gulping monster 18-20 hours a day for
what amounted to minimum wage. I'm back in technology but I still see 22% of
my income going to someone who doesn't want to work. I also see the
judgement hanging on my wall that gives her a huge yearly bonus because I
tried to have the amount adjusted to a reasonable amount, If I hadn't gone
to court I would have continued to pay an amount that would be more like
40-50% of my Take-home-pay. I earned ~$7000 last year. I paid more than that
to CS. You figure it out.

So. Add your two cents. But let's find a better solution.

Papa

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> > child
> > > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
> deducted,
> > > the
> > > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> > >
> > > Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
> but
> > > if the technology allows it then yes.
> >
> > That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take
our
> > case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
> never
> > knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck
garnished
> > for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
> by
> > an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay
child
> > support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
> > others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
> imputed
> > to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever
since.
> > Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
> system
> > you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
> deserve
> > to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
> > working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
> raised,
> > how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
> gets
> > many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
> all
> > of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
> they
> > take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
> Can
> > they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
> all
> > of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
> power
> > are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
> things
> > she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have
a
> > clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
> time?
> > Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
> plan
> > makes me very nervous!
>
> Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
> not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and
some
> sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
> parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
> understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no
claim
> to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
> your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?
>
> Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
> husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
> unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children
is
> a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is
flexibility,
> there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
> And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.
>
> the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money
she
> received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change
how
> much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to
make
> one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
> expenses are reasonable and justified.

Do you really expect thast a social worker will be a "voice of reason"? We
have social workers now. And Friends of the Court, and all sorts of people
who aer supposed to be "voices of reason"! But they are a big part of
thereason things have skewed so badly. We live in a different state than
the child. Do you think that, if a social worker in her state repeatedly
files reports saying that the child is living at a fairly impoverished
level, and the social worker in our state reports that our children aer
living at a middle class level, there won't be changes made? The CS that is
paid id dufficient for school clothes--but if it is spent on school clothes
for several, rather than just one, it may appear to a social worker looking
ath the one child, that there was not enough money for school clothes, etc.
Do you not think that the social workers will become spokesmen for thier
particular case load? Do you think there will be no competition for the
money that is brought in?

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> > child
> > > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
> deducted,
> > > the
> > > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> > >
> > > Actually, yes. It's bold move and would need extremely fast processing
> but
> > > if the technology allows it then yes.
> >
> > That's what I thought. So how would you actually work this out? Take
our
> > case as an example. Hubby found out that he had a 13 year daughter he
> never
> > knew about, product of a one night stand. Began having paycheck
garnished
> > for 20% of his wages. The mother has a variety of illegitimate children
> by
> > an equal number of men. Only 1 (my husband) has been ordered to pay
child
> > support. Seems they are still working their way down the lists for the
> > others. Mom has not worked a day in her life, but has minimum wage
> imputed
> > to her. I worked my way through college and have been working ever
since.
> > Hubby and I have 8 and 9 year old daughters. So how does this great
> system
> > you want to establish handle this? Doe his daughter by welfare mom
> deserve
> > to live at the same standard of living that our 2 daughters (who have 2
> > working parents) enjoy? If this daughter has her standard of living
> raised,
> > how about all her half siblings? How will you explain to them that sis
> gets
> > many things that they do not because her dad has been discovered? Or do
> all
> > of the children in that household have to be similarly supported? Will
> they
> > take a far greater portion of my husband's paycheck, since I also work?
> Can
> > they force us to sell our house and move to a more modest hovel, just so
> all
> > of the child's siblings are similarly treated? Just exactly how much
> power
> > are we to give the government? And can mom come up with all sorts of
> things
> > she wants for her daughter each month, to the point where we never have
a
> > clue as to how much we will get back from the government at any given
> time?
> > Try to explain your self in a bit more detail, please. Right now your
> plan
> > makes me very nervous!
>
> Frankly it makes me nervous too but I'm just bring this to the table. It's
> not a complete plan by any means. The involvement of social workers and
some
> sort of voice of reason is my hope in making it more reasonable for all
> parties. I see it as better than the current scenario where there's little
> understanding for the father's point of situation. Perhaps there's no
claim
> to back-support if they only began searching for the father later on. Is
> your husband not responsible for a one-night-stand? Is the child not his?
>
> Perhaps 20% is unreasonable but the fact remains that a child by your
> husband exists and could not without his contribution. I know it seems
> unfair that this welfare mom hasn't worked at a job but raising children
is
> a job to many. The one thing this guideline would allow for is
flexibility,
> there's nothing in my plan that says the cp needs an equalized lifestyle.
> And yes there are gaps in my plan ... it's early in the design stages.
>
> the siblings are not the concern of the husband, you know that the money
she
> received will go to all the children in effect, but that does not change
how
> much she's entitled to. I don't expect the system's charter would be to
make
> one father pay the whole amount, the social-worker's job is to ensure the
> expenses are reasonable and justified.

Do you really expect thast a social worker will be a "voice of reason"? We
have social workers now. And Friends of the Court, and all sorts of people
who aer supposed to be "voices of reason"! But they are a big part of
thereason things have skewed so badly. We live in a different state than
the child. Do you think that, if a social worker in her state repeatedly
files reports saying that the child is living at a fairly impoverished
level, and the social worker in our state reports that our children aer
living at a middle class level, there won't be changes made? The CS that is
paid id dufficient for school clothes--but if it is spent on school clothes
for several, rather than just one, it may appear to a social worker looking
ath the one child, that there was not enough money for school clothes, etc.
Do you not think that the social workers will become spokesmen for thier
particular case load? Do you think there will be no competition for the
money that is brought in?

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting 1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.

[Virginia]

PapaPolarbear wrote:


>>To make this plan work we will need the government to
>>inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
>>Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
>>children.
>
>
> Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
>

Yes keep the government out of my home unless they can prove that
something is going on that shouldn't be (I mean they can prove in a
court in front of a jury). Why? Kids already have been given more
power than parents in the system in that allows them to simply imply
that they may be unhappy at home in order to bring in CPS. It's hard
enough being a parent with social workers believe that parents are not
"trained" enough to parent (when in truth less than 10% of parents abuse
their children physically, emotionally, or sexually).






> It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service
> offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge
> can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a
> better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see
> alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people
> deal with several broken systems.
>
>

The government will never have a governmental "solution" that is
non-governmental. It's not how political power is maintained and
regardless of how idealistically you may veiw the government, the
government only grows more powerfull over time never weaker.

[Virginia]

PapaPolarbear wrote:


>>To make this plan work we will need the government to
>>inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
>>Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
>>children.
>
>
> Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
>

Yes keep the government out of my home unless they can prove that
something is going on that shouldn't be (I mean they can prove in a
court in front of a jury). Why? Kids already have been given more
power than parents in the system in that allows them to simply imply
that they may be unhappy at home in order to bring in CPS. It's hard
enough being a parent with social workers believe that parents are not
"trained" enough to parent (when in truth less than 10% of parents abuse
their children physically, emotionally, or sexually).






> It's entirely possible this could be an non-government agency. A service
> offered, remember you're paying for it and you can opt in or out. A judge
> can impute income, this is troubling to me. Perhaps there needs to be a
> better solution, and perhaps mine is not the right way to go but I don't see
> alot of productive discussion on here. I see alot of people helping people
> deal with several broken systems.
>
>

The government will never have a governmental "solution" that is
non-governmental. It's not how political power is maintained and
regardless of how idealistically you may veiw the government, the
government only grows more powerfull over time never weaker.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> child
> > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
> > the
> > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> >
> > Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
> > government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
> > under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls.
> Of
> > course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government
> will
> > dictate how people raise their children and how much the government
> expects
> > child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of
> child
> > custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The
> parents
> > will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
> > involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the
14th
> > Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The
> new
> > social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will
move
> > from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
> > monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly
data
> > entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers
will
> > be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws
> and
> > the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
> > inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
> > Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
> > children.
>
> Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas are:

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Are you suggesting that each parent's entire income go first to the
> child
> > > support system, and, after child support and the surcharge are
deducted,
> > the
> > > remainder be returned to the parents?
> >
> > Yep. This is socialism at its finest. Give every thing you have to the
> > government and let the government decide how much each parent gets back
> > under a floating redistribution of wealth plan the government controls.
> Of
> > course, we'll need bigger government to pull this off. The government
> will
> > dictate how people raise their children and how much the government
> expects
> > child expenditures to be. The government will control all aspects of
> child
> > custody removing those decisions from the parents' discretion. The
> parents
> > will be taxed in the form of a surcharge to pay for more government
> > involvement in their lives and we will suspend the application of the
14th
> > Ammendment equal protections for divorced or never married parents. The
> new
> > social workers will need to be paid higher salaries because they will
move
> > from money changers to computer experts who will know how to constantly
> > monitor ever changing family and parenting conditions to make monthly
data
> > entries on each case file to reflect the changes. The social workers
will
> > be able to take direct corrective action bypassing the due process laws
> and
> > the court system. To make this plan work we will need the government to
> > inspect the homes where children live and visit to ensure compliance.
> > Parents will accept this new socialist approach because it is for the
> > children.
>
> Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas are:

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
> absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
sent
> as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting
1
> penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
> for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
> (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
> will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
will
> be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
matter
> how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
> it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
> protections built in for the NCP.

"Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
just the child it is intended for?"

It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
it.

Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.

Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
> absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
sent
> as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting
1
> penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
> for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
> (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
> will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
will
> be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
matter
> how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
> it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
> protections built in for the NCP.

"Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
just the child it is intended for?"

It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
it.

Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.

Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
>
> You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
>
> Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
>
> The better ideas are:
>
> Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
> divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
> for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
> of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's 2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful. They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
>
> You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
>
> Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
>
> The better ideas are:
>
> Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
> divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
> for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
> of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's 2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful. They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.

Papa

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And
she
> > absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
> sent
> > as child support, and no other person in that household should be
getting
> 1
> > penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use
it
> > for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
> > (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
> > will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
> will
> > be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
> matter
> > how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will
make
> > it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
> > protections built in for the NCP.
>
> "Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
> just the child it is intended for?"
>
> It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
> it.
>
> Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
> parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.
>
> Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
> realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And
she
> > absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
> sent
> > as child support, and no other person in that household should be
getting
> 1
> > penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use
it
> > for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
> > (Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
> > will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
> will
> > be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
> matter
> > how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will
make
> > it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
> > protections built in for the NCP.
>
> "Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
> just the child it is intended for?"
>
> It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
> it.
>
> Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
> parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.
>
> Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
> realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
> >
> > You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
> >
> > Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
> >
> > The better ideas are:
> >
> > Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
> > divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
> > for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> > mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
> regardless
> > of birth order equally, etc.
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thank-you...
>
> I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
> start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
> governemt or legal institution anyway.

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
> >
> > You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
> >
> > Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
> >
> > The better ideas are:
> >
> > Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
> > divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
> > for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> > mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
> regardless
> > of birth order equally, etc.
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thank-you...
>
> I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
> start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
> governemt or legal institution anyway.

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
> >
> > You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
> >
> > Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
> >
> > The better ideas are:
> >
> > Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
> > divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
> > for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> > mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
> regardless
> > of birth order equally, etc.
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thank-you...
>
> I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
> start with. Marriage is a religious thing
==
Actually it isn't a religious "thing." It is and always has been
a financial matter. The religious sanction came later to this financial
institution. That is why many believe that two people
in love can have a "marriage" ie commitment, caring, cherishing, monogamy
without that piece of paper.
Indeed, marriage is--a financial piece of paper. When two people marry, the
state views the relationship as financial--the man is (still) supposed to
provide financially for the wife and children. The state is concerned about
that support, the tax implications, assets, divorce settlements, death
benefits, inheritance, insurance, etc.
(More Below)
==
>and really shouldn't be a
> governemt or legal institution anyway.
==
Without government involvement, there is no reason for "marriage" as there
are no financial
implications for the marriage institution other than those few that are
voluntarily entered into by the parties and those mandated by individual
religious beliefs, which are neither enforced nor recognized by the
government.
(More Below)
==
>
> CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
> necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
> court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's
2
> weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with
no
> CS exchanged.
>
> In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.
>
> What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
> those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
> lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful.
They
> are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and
the
> idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.
==
It takes time to change something that has existed as part of the social
structure for so long.
The courts/legislatures will not change until society forces them to change.
Society will not
force a change until society sees the need for change. What fathers can and
are doing is
making more noise about the injustices in family courts. It is taking
society a while just to get past the idea
that all fathers are concerned about changing is child support. Society is
just now learning that some
men are required to support kids that aren't theirs and that the absence of
fathers has a detrimental effect on children.
==
==

>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > > Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?
> >
> > You asked for "comments" and you got comments.
> >
> > Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."
> >
> > The better ideas are:
> >
> > Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
> > divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
> > for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
> > mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
> regardless
> > of birth order equally, etc.
>
> Hi Bob,
>
> Thank-you...
>
> I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
> start with. Marriage is a religious thing
==
Actually it isn't a religious "thing." It is and always has been
a financial matter. The religious sanction came later to this financial
institution. That is why many believe that two people
in love can have a "marriage" ie commitment, caring, cherishing, monogamy
without that piece of paper.
Indeed, marriage is--a financial piece of paper. When two people marry, the
state views the relationship as financial--the man is (still) supposed to
provide financially for the wife and children. The state is concerned about
that support, the tax implications, assets, divorce settlements, death
benefits, inheritance, insurance, etc.
(More Below)
==
>and really shouldn't be a
> governemt or legal institution anyway.
==
Without government involvement, there is no reason for "marriage" as there
are no financial
implications for the marriage institution other than those few that are
voluntarily entered into by the parties and those mandated by individual
religious beliefs, which are neither enforced nor recognized by the
government.
(More Below)
==
>
> CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
> necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
> court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's
2
> weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with
no
> CS exchanged.
>
> In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.
>
> What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
> those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
> lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful.
They
> are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and
the
> idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.
==
It takes time to change something that has existed as part of the social
structure for so long.
The courts/legislatures will not change until society forces them to change.
Society will not
force a change until society sees the need for change. What fathers can and
are doing is
making more noise about the injustices in family courts. It is taking
society a while just to get past the idea
that all fathers are concerned about changing is child support. Society is
just now learning that some
men are required to support kids that aren't theirs and that the absence of
fathers has a detrimental effect on children.
==
==

>
> Papa
>
>

[...8MM..]

Do not get married and do not have children, the feminist socialist idiots
would go nuts, and start paying men to have kids, like I heard in some other
countries, the men folks are not getting married there or having kids, and
their governments is worried, no children, no future taxes, no income for
the government....

You Men folks should be storming the feminist groups hideouts and government
buildings and hanging the idiots to the nearest tree......


"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...
> I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
> better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
> thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
> raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
> keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
> be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
> the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
> food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
> provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
> should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
> living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
> he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
> cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
> either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
> afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
> then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
> simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
> takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
> or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
> assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.
>
> Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
> whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
> taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
> one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
> unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
> running for the office of the President of the United States and her
> agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
> under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
> and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
> enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
> mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
> acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
> pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
> alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
> women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
> double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
> more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
> demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
> raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
> drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
> today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
> because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
> has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
> democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
> socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
> America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
> (Remember this on election day).
>
> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.
>
> Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
> cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
> children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
> need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
> independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
> the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
> trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
> ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
> being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[...8MM..]

Do not get married and do not have children, the feminist socialist idiots
would go nuts, and start paying men to have kids, like I heard in some other
countries, the men folks are not getting married there or having kids, and
their governments is worried, no children, no future taxes, no income for
the government....

You Men folks should be storming the feminist groups hideouts and government
buildings and hanging the idiots to the nearest tree......


"chillin'" > wrote in message
m...
> I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
> better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
> thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
> raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
> keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
> be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
> the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
> food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
> provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
> should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
> living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
> he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
> cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
> either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
> afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
> then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
> simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
> takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
> or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
> assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.
>
> Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
> whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
> taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
> one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
> unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
> running for the office of the President of the United States and her
> agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
> under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
> and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
> enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
> mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
> acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
> pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
> alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
> women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
> double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
> more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
> demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
> raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
> drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
> today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
> because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
> has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
> democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
> socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
> America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
> (Remember this on election day).
>
> What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> would have you to believe.
>
> Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
> cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
> children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
> need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
> independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
> the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
> trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
> ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
> being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
> our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
> the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
> be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
> you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
> they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you seem
to know how to do!

The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
help
> our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
> the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
would
> be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
> you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
> they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you seem
to know how to do!

The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
>

That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see a
need.

I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related to
marriage.

Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?

Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great! Why
are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
contributing.

We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How do
we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
>

That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see a
need.

I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related to
marriage.

Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?

Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great! Why
are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
contributing.

We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How do
we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> > marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> > under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> > standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
> >
>
> That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
===
===

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> > marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> > under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> > standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
> >
>
> That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
===
===

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
> help
> > our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> > social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
> > the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
> would
> > be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> > believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> > control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
> > you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
> > they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?
>
> Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
> guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
> me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
> about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
> to know how to do!
==
Excuse me? It seems that you are chastizing us for not having the answers to
questions you don't have answers to. What sense does that make?
(More Below)
==
> The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
> those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
> it? What would fix it?
==
Actually, this group has been on usenet for years and has been an immense
help to hundreds
of fathers. Many of us have studied family law for years and have a better
knowledge
of the system and state codes than many (if not most) family law attorneys.
Perhaps if it isn't to your liking,
you can move on or direct us to your treasuretrove of wisdom whereby we can
become
enlightened to your solutions to the entire family law system.
==
==
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
> help
> > our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> > social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
> > the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
> would
> > be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> > believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> > control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
> > you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
> > they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?
>
> Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
> guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
> me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
> about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
> to know how to do!
==
Excuse me? It seems that you are chastizing us for not having the answers to
questions you don't have answers to. What sense does that make?
(More Below)
==
> The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
> those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
> it? What would fix it?
==
Actually, this group has been on usenet for years and has been an immense
help to hundreds
of fathers. Many of us have studied family law for years and have a better
knowledge
of the system and state codes than many (if not most) family law attorneys.
Perhaps if it isn't to your liking,
you can move on or direct us to your treasuretrove of wisdom whereby we can
become
enlightened to your solutions to the entire family law system.
==
==
>

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
> help
> > our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> > social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
> > the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
> would
> > be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> > believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> > control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
> > you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
> > they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?
>
> Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
> guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
> me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
> about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
> to know how to do!

I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone gets
each month.

>
> The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
> those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
> it? What would fix it?

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95% of
the problems right there.

>
> Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
> would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to
> help
> > our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
> > social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning
above
> > the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things
> would
> > be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
> > believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
> > control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why
do
> > you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human
if
> > they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?
>
> Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
> guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
> me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
> about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
> to know how to do!

I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone gets
each month.

>
> The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
> those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
> it? What would fix it?

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95% of
the problems right there.

>
> Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
> would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
> entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
> in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
> whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
> each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

> I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
> I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
> they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95%
of
> the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

> > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
> > would you regulate the amount?
>
> Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
> essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
> a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
> from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement too.

It's scary.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
> entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
> in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
> whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
> each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

> I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
> I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
> they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95%
of
> the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

> > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
> > would you regulate the amount?
>
> Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
> essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
> a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
> from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement too.

It's scary.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> > mean?
> ===
> It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
> as legally
> binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
> applicable. Common
> law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to do
with marriage.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> > mean?
> ===
> It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
> as legally
> binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
> applicable. Common
> law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to do
with marriage.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that
really
> > > mean?
> > ===
> > It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
> recognized
> > as legally
> > binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
> > applicable. Common
> > law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
>
> I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I
don't
> see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to
do
> with marriage.
==
That's because you are denying its legal existence (which is based entirely
on financial grounds).
Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we can
tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is the
entire dilemma. We all
know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change can
be enacted. For now, we
must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens *a
lot* to NCPs in family court.
One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy of
should/is,
most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you don't
like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you jailed
for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's finances
are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that
really
> > > mean?
> > ===
> > It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
> recognized
> > as legally
> > binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
> > applicable. Common
> > law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.
>
> I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I
don't
> see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to
do
> with marriage.
==
That's because you are denying its legal existence (which is based entirely
on financial grounds).
Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we can
tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is the
entire dilemma. We all
know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change can
be enacted. For now, we
must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens *a
lot* to NCPs in family court.
One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy of
should/is,
most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you don't
like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you jailed
for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's finances
are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.
>
> > I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> > responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
> > I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
> that
> > they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
> of
> > the problems right there.
>
> The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
> number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
> which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
> have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their children
are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I think
that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about as
the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many into
seeming deadbeats.
>
> > > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
> How
> > > would you regulate the amount?
> >
> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> It's scary.

No kidding!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.
>
> > I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> > responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
> > I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
> that
> > they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
> of
> > the problems right there.
>
> The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
> number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
> which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
> have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their children
are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I think
that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about as
the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many into
seeming deadbeats.
>
> > > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
> How
> > > would you regulate the amount?
> >
> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> It's scary.

No kidding!

[...8MM..]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> > marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> > under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> > standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
> >
>
> That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
> whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
> request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see
a
> need.
>
> I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related
to
> marriage.
>
> Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?
>
> Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great!
Why
> are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
> contributing.
>
> We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How
do
> we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

By storming the feminazi groups and the government buildings and making it
clear, clean up your acts or else, revolution.

>
> Papa
>
>

[...8MM..]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >
> > Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
> > marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
> > under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
> > standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.
> >
>
> That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
> mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
> whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
> request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see
a
> need.
>
> I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related
to
> marriage.
>
> Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?
>
> Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great!
Why
> are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
> contributing.
>
> We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How
do
> we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

By storming the feminazi groups and the government buildings and making it
clear, clean up your acts or else, revolution.

>
> Papa
>
>

[Tracy]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
> > would you regulate the amount?
>
> Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
> essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
> a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
> from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.


Yes there is a way to keep mom from purchasing a better brand of booze with
that money. Recognize it as a form of neglect (child abuse) when a child is
not being supported to a certain standard determined by the amount of child
support received. When child abuse happens, the child should be removed
from that parent and given to the other parent - period. Another common are
of child abuse, which isn't necessarily recognized in court, is when the CP
prevent the NCP in having a relationship with the child(ren). If the courts
would start reacting by modifying custody based on those forms of child
abuse, then the CP would think twice before wasting child-support dollars,
or playing other types of games.

It doesn't take detailed accounting to show that a child is being supported
to a certain level (based on support). In many cases it is very obvious
they aren't. What is really unfortunate are those who truly abuse the
system seem to be used as to beat-up on those who aren't, not to mention
those who are abusive are *not* the norm. We see this with fathers who are
called "deadbeat", when they aren't. And we see this with mother's who are
working to support their families, but are automatically believed to be
living off of welfare/child-support/alimony/the 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 ***

[Tracy]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >
> > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
> > would you regulate the amount?
>
> Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
> essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
> a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
> from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.


Yes there is a way to keep mom from purchasing a better brand of booze with
that money. Recognize it as a form of neglect (child abuse) when a child is
not being supported to a certain standard determined by the amount of child
support received. When child abuse happens, the child should be removed
from that parent and given to the other parent - period. Another common are
of child abuse, which isn't necessarily recognized in court, is when the CP
prevent the NCP in having a relationship with the child(ren). If the courts
would start reacting by modifying custody based on those forms of child
abuse, then the CP would think twice before wasting child-support dollars,
or playing other types of games.

It doesn't take detailed accounting to show that a child is being supported
to a certain level (based on support). In many cases it is very obvious
they aren't. What is really unfortunate are those who truly abuse the
system seem to be used as to beat-up on those who aren't, not to mention
those who are abusive are *not* the norm. We see this with fathers who are
called "deadbeat", when they aren't. And we see this with mother's who are
working to support their families, but are automatically believed to be
living off of welfare/child-support/alimony/the 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 ***

[Tracy]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

Not hopeless - a challenge.


> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.

disagree. The child deserves to be removed from the mother's house, and
placed some where safe. It isn't the judges, but the system overall.


> It's scary.

It isn't scary to me. For a real change it will require a change in how we
view it, and attitude.


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]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

Not hopeless - a challenge.


> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.

disagree. The child deserves to be removed from the mother's house, and
placed some where safe. It isn't the judges, but the system overall.


> It's scary.

It isn't scary to me. For a real change it will require a change in how we
view it, and attitude.


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 ***

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.
>
> > I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> > responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
> > I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
> that
> > they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
> of
> > the problems right there.
>
> The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
> number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
> which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
> have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.


>
> > > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
> How
> > > would you regulate the amount?
> >
> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> It's scary.
>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
> NCP's
> > entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
> can
> > in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
> people
> > whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
> gets
> > each month.
>
> It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.
>
> > I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
> > responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
> > I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
> that
> > they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
> of
> > the problems right there.
>
> The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
> number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
> which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
> have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.


>
> > > Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
> How
> > > would you regulate the amount?
> >
> > Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
> the
> > essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
> be
> > a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
> mom
> > from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.
>
> You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
> problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
> bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> It's scary.
>
> Papa
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
> system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
> number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their
children
> are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
> but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I
think
> that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about
as
> the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
> thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> seeming deadbeats.

How does an organisation, an agency, a person know a father is not a
deadbeat dad? There is a presumption of guilt. The basic right of criminal
law, innocent until proven guilty, is disregarded entirely by the
organisations and the government (laws).

Persecution based on conjecture is the name of the game. While I'm going the
argument of specific amounts or guidelines at this particular moment, the
challenge for many falls into a few bullets:
- CS is not automatically adaptive based on income. Proof of income is
required, requires lawyer ($$)
- Guideline amounts seem extreme and are difficult to adjust ($$)
- CP can withold/threaten access and NCP requires courts ($$) to resolve.
- CP move is uncontrolled and may change circumstances, access may cost
more $ or become impossible.
- CP can shirk various responsibilities.

These are all huge points to tackle, and I'm sure there are more, but the
reality is the system does not trust the father. The "deadbeat dad" label is
readily available and placed you in the dungeons of society. Most fathers do
want to be part of their child's life. Some don't but still face the
responsibility of CS. Some are driven away by the remnants of the
relationship, others by the threat of support. Some go too far and become
criminals, driven insane by the persecution, killing CPs, children.

Those of us who believe in being part of the childs life are easy targets
because we haven't run. We're right there to take the punishment of the
system. Those who run face it if they're caught, so what. They're part of
the reason we pay (emotionally, psychologically). Those that go off the
deep-end... What can I say, they just broke, but they do offer the
impression that fathers are dangerous.

See... we actually do agree on this... we all agree. The system is wrong...
in all it's forms across the globe it's wrong. I'd love to hear of a working
system. Our society has a big part in the reason is doesn't work, as much as
why it exists at all.

How do we convince our goverments that they must redefine the lines...
CP/NCP/PNP/NPP (Parent Not Present - Paying, Non-Paying Parent)?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
> system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
> number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their
children
> are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
> but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I
think
> that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about
as
> the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
> thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> seeming deadbeats.

How does an organisation, an agency, a person know a father is not a
deadbeat dad? There is a presumption of guilt. The basic right of criminal
law, innocent until proven guilty, is disregarded entirely by the
organisations and the government (laws).

Persecution based on conjecture is the name of the game. While I'm going the
argument of specific amounts or guidelines at this particular moment, the
challenge for many falls into a few bullets:
- CS is not automatically adaptive based on income. Proof of income is
required, requires lawyer ($$)
- Guideline amounts seem extreme and are difficult to adjust ($$)
- CP can withold/threaten access and NCP requires courts ($$) to resolve.
- CP move is uncontrolled and may change circumstances, access may cost
more $ or become impossible.
- CP can shirk various responsibilities.

These are all huge points to tackle, and I'm sure there are more, but the
reality is the system does not trust the father. The "deadbeat dad" label is
readily available and placed you in the dungeons of society. Most fathers do
want to be part of their child's life. Some don't but still face the
responsibility of CS. Some are driven away by the remnants of the
relationship, others by the threat of support. Some go too far and become
criminals, driven insane by the persecution, killing CPs, children.

Those of us who believe in being part of the childs life are easy targets
because we haven't run. We're right there to take the punishment of the
system. Those who run face it if they're caught, so what. They're part of
the reason we pay (emotionally, psychologically). Those that go off the
deep-end... What can I say, they just broke, but they do offer the
impression that fathers are dangerous.

See... we actually do agree on this... we all agree. The system is wrong...
in all it's forms across the globe it's wrong. I'd love to hear of a working
system. Our society has a big part in the reason is doesn't work, as much as
why it exists at all.

How do we convince our goverments that they must redefine the lines...
CP/NCP/PNP/NPP (Parent Not Present - Paying, Non-Paying Parent)?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:W346b.272286$Oz4.72030@rwcrnsc54...

> > You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is
a
> > problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected.
The
> > bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> disagree. The child deserves to be removed from the mother's house, and
> placed some where safe. It isn't the judges, but the system overall.

The judge has the power to remove the child from the home. Some judges
re-act poorly to what seems like mud-slinging and this is usually where
Children's Aid is a player. They're a whole other discussion because
families can be persecuted and wrongly accused too, placing CA in a
difficult situation.

> It isn't scary to me. For a real change it will require a change in how
we
> view it, and attitude.

Perception is everything. Biases and prejudices are difficult to fight. The
question is how?

Do people on a soapbox screaming all sorts of words of blame resolve things,
no. The best solutions come from discussion, like this and presenting ideas
in an orderly manner to the lawmakers. Many people resent the lawmakers but
we need them to make the changes.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Tracy" > wrote in message
news:W346b.272286$Oz4.72030@rwcrnsc54...

> > You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is
a
> > problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected.
The
> > bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.
>
> disagree. The child deserves to be removed from the mother's house, and
> placed some where safe. It isn't the judges, but the system overall.

The judge has the power to remove the child from the home. Some judges
re-act poorly to what seems like mud-slinging and this is usually where
Children's Aid is a player. They're a whole other discussion because
families can be persecuted and wrongly accused too, placing CA in a
difficult situation.

> It isn't scary to me. For a real change it will require a change in how
we
> view it, and attitude.

Perception is everything. Biases and prejudices are difficult to fight. The
question is how?

Do people on a soapbox screaming all sorts of words of blame resolve things,
no. The best solutions come from discussion, like this and presenting ideas
in an orderly manner to the lawmakers. Many people resent the lawmakers but
we need them to make the changes.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
> sufficient
> > number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
> responsibility
> > which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but
they
> > have a role to play because of the deadbeats.
>
> You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

> The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
> that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
> collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
> collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
> mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
> sufficient
> > number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
> responsibility
> > which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but
they
> > have a role to play because of the deadbeats.
>
> You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

> The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
> that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
> collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
> collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
> mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
> financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
> with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we
can
> tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is
the
> entire dilemma. We all
> know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change
can
> be enacted. For now, we
> must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens
*a
> lot* to NCPs in family court.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Marriage SHOULD not be a factor or an aspect
of CS.

> One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy
of
> should/is,
> most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
> cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
> all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
> been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
> that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you
don't
> like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you
jailed
> for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's
finances
> are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.

I have a firm understnading of what IS and the system IS disfunctional to
put it nicely.

You are dead right about the courts, and too many CP (mothers) take that to
heart. A short time ago my ex was claiming, though not in court - just
yelling at me over the phone, that I was "denying access" to her children.
In reality it was her laziness and lack of responsibility that was the real
denial. She merely had to come by and pick them up as she had agreed earlier
in the day. She threatened court if they were not DELIVERED that night. She
lives 7 minutes drive away and, well, she has the new car. I don't have one
at all.

Was I being stubborn? yes. Absolutely. The intent was to help her understand
I will not be threatened or pushed around. It worked. Now. We don't speak at
all, she can't help but get upset and I don't get upset.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
> financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
> with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we
can
> tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is
the
> entire dilemma. We all
> know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change
can
> be enacted. For now, we
> must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens
*a
> lot* to NCPs in family court.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Marriage SHOULD not be a factor or an aspect
of CS.

> One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy
of
> should/is,
> most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
> cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
> all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
> been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
> that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you
don't
> like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you
jailed
> for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's
finances
> are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.

I have a firm understnading of what IS and the system IS disfunctional to
put it nicely.

You are dead right about the courts, and too many CP (mothers) take that to
heart. A short time ago my ex was claiming, though not in court - just
yelling at me over the phone, that I was "denying access" to her children.
In reality it was her laziness and lack of responsibility that was the real
denial. She merely had to come by and pick them up as she had agreed earlier
in the day. She threatened court if they were not DELIVERED that night. She
lives 7 minutes drive away and, well, she has the new car. I don't have one
at all.

Was I being stubborn? yes. Absolutely. The intent was to help her understand
I will not be threatened or pushed around. It worked. Now. We don't speak at
all, she can't help but get upset and I don't get upset.

Papa

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
> > sufficient
> > > number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
> > responsibility
> > > which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but
> they
> > > have a role to play because of the deadbeats.
> >
> > You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.
>
> No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
> ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
> system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
> choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
> the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.
>
> > The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead,
unaware
> > that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money
being
> > collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
> > collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
> > mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of
parents.
>
> Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want
to
> take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
> those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their
income
> or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have
set
> the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

Once again you have bought into the propaganda. THe percentage of 'true'
deadbeats hasn't changed with guvmint involvement. It is simple an excuse
to grow the guvmint

>
> How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
> could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.


>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
> > sufficient
> > > number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
> > responsibility
> > > which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but
> they
> > > have a role to play because of the deadbeats.
> >
> > You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.
>
> No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
> ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
> system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
> choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
> the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.
>
> > The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead,
unaware
> > that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money
being
> > collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
> > collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
> > mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of
parents.
>
> Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want
to
> take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
> those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their
income
> or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have
set
> the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

Once again you have bought into the propaganda. THe percentage of 'true'
deadbeats hasn't changed with guvmint involvement. It is simple an excuse
to grow the guvmint

>
> How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
> could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.


>
> Papa
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
> > could you know the difference between the two?
>
> It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Perhaps someone should start a private industry that persues the deadbeats,
and NGO. They can ask politely that a delinquent NCP pay for the child he
created. Give the agency any teeth and it's as good as government.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...
> > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
> > could you know the difference between the two?
>
> It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Perhaps someone should start a private industry that persues the deadbeats,
and NGO. They can ask politely that a delinquent NCP pay for the child he
created. Give the agency any teeth and it's as good as government.

Papa

[teachrmama]

If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
isn't how it happens to be.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system. Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!


"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
> > system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about
the
> > number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their
> children
> > are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not
true,
> > but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I
> think
> > that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied
about
> as
> > the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
> into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> How does an organisation, an agency, a person know a father is not a
> deadbeat dad? There is a presumption of guilt. The basic right of criminal
> law, innocent until proven guilty, is disregarded entirely by the
> organisations and the government (laws).
>
> Persecution based on conjecture is the name of the game. While I'm going
the
> argument of specific amounts or guidelines at this particular moment, the
> challenge for many falls into a few bullets:
> - CS is not automatically adaptive based on income. Proof of income is
> required, requires lawyer ($$)
> - Guideline amounts seem extreme and are difficult to adjust ($$)
> - CP can withold/threaten access and NCP requires courts ($$) to resolve.
> - CP move is uncontrolled and may change circumstances, access may cost
> more $ or become impossible.
> - CP can shirk various responsibilities.
>
> These are all huge points to tackle, and I'm sure there are more, but the
> reality is the system does not trust the father. The "deadbeat dad" label
is
> readily available and placed you in the dungeons of society. Most fathers
do
> want to be part of their child's life. Some don't but still face the
> responsibility of CS. Some are driven away by the remnants of the
> relationship, others by the threat of support. Some go too far and become
> criminals, driven insane by the persecution, killing CPs, children.
>
> Those of us who believe in being part of the childs life are easy targets
> because we haven't run. We're right there to take the punishment of the
> system. Those who run face it if they're caught, so what. They're part of
> the reason we pay (emotionally, psychologically). Those that go off the
> deep-end... What can I say, they just broke, but they do offer the
> impression that fathers are dangerous.
>
> See... we actually do agree on this... we all agree. The system is
wrong...
> in all it's forms across the globe it's wrong. I'd love to hear of a
working
> system. Our society has a big part in the reason is doesn't work, as much
as
> why it exists at all.
>
> How do we convince our goverments that they must redefine the lines...
> CP/NCP/PNP/NPP (Parent Not Present - Paying, Non-Paying Parent)?
>
> Papa
>
>

[teachrmama]

If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
isn't how it happens to be.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system. Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!


"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
> > system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about
the
> > number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their
> children
> > are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not
true,
> > but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I
> think
> > that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied
about
> as
> > the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
> into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> How does an organisation, an agency, a person know a father is not a
> deadbeat dad? There is a presumption of guilt. The basic right of criminal
> law, innocent until proven guilty, is disregarded entirely by the
> organisations and the government (laws).
>
> Persecution based on conjecture is the name of the game. While I'm going
the
> argument of specific amounts or guidelines at this particular moment, the
> challenge for many falls into a few bullets:
> - CS is not automatically adaptive based on income. Proof of income is
> required, requires lawyer ($$)
> - Guideline amounts seem extreme and are difficult to adjust ($$)
> - CP can withold/threaten access and NCP requires courts ($$) to resolve.
> - CP move is uncontrolled and may change circumstances, access may cost
> more $ or become impossible.
> - CP can shirk various responsibilities.
>
> These are all huge points to tackle, and I'm sure there are more, but the
> reality is the system does not trust the father. The "deadbeat dad" label
is
> readily available and placed you in the dungeons of society. Most fathers
do
> want to be part of their child's life. Some don't but still face the
> responsibility of CS. Some are driven away by the remnants of the
> relationship, others by the threat of support. Some go too far and become
> criminals, driven insane by the persecution, killing CPs, children.
>
> Those of us who believe in being part of the childs life are easy targets
> because we haven't run. We're right there to take the punishment of the
> system. Those who run face it if they're caught, so what. They're part of
> the reason we pay (emotionally, psychologically). Those that go off the
> deep-end... What can I say, they just broke, but they do offer the
> impression that fathers are dangerous.
>
> See... we actually do agree on this... we all agree. The system is
wrong...
> in all it's forms across the globe it's wrong. I'd love to hear of a
working
> system. Our society has a big part in the reason is doesn't work, as much
as
> why it exists at all.
>
> How do we convince our goverments that they must redefine the lines...
> CP/NCP/PNP/NPP (Parent Not Present - Paying, Non-Paying Parent)?
>
> Papa
>
>

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> >
> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
>
> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support
get
> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse, then
the system can step in.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
How
> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> >
> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
>
> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support
get
> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The vast
majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It is a
politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to support
their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse, then
the system can step in.

[welynchz]

Then what happens when the NCP has other children from a second marriage or
another relationship? Are they to be deemed "lesser" entitled to their
fathers income??

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "chillin'" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> > other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> > than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> > supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> > sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> > not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> > governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> > of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> > would have you to believe.
>
> Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
> created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
> work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
> died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
> is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
> based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
> incomes.
>
> There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
> where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
> team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
> working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
> doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
> evade the responsibility to pay CS.
>
> There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
> thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
> amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
> that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
> to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
> responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
> at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
> criminals.
>
> The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
> ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
> counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
> being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
> Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
> pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
> interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
> considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
> discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
> a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
> "bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
> into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
> parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
> extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
> any deposit would be re-routed through this system.
>
> This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
> about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
> in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
> sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
> possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
> structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
> something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
> tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
> pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
> amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
> 150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
> 2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
> the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
> some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
> the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
> social worker has the say.
>
> The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
> $20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
> charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
> assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
> the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
> a credit when they fisih the CS process.
>
> These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.
>
> Papa
>
>
>

[welynchz]

Then what happens when the NCP has other children from a second marriage or
another relationship? Are they to be deemed "lesser" entitled to their
fathers income??

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "chillin'" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> > What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
> > other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
> > than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
> > supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
> > sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
> > not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
> > governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
> > of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
> > would have you to believe.
>
> Your perception is reality for the majority of cases. It seems that CS was
> created based on the expectation that the cp (typically the woman) would
not
> work or earned at a lower level than the cp (typically the man). This
model
> died out years ago and the real concern I have is that the amount of
support
> is based solely on the ncp's income. In a marriage the funds available are
> based upon the shared income. CS really should be balanced to factor in
both
> incomes.
>
> There seems to be little forgiveness for bad luck, falling on bad times
> where income doesn't exist. In a marriage hard times are dealt with as a
> team yet judges and governments feel the ncp is cheating the cp by not
> working. The unfortunate thing is that some people set the stage for this
by
> doing just that. They quit, or get themselves fired and do all they can to
> evade the responsibility to pay CS.
>
> There's a prejudice towards NCPs because of those NCPs that do everything
in
> thier power to avoid paying a reasonable amount, in time the reasonable
> amount has become unreasonable. The Child-support guidelines and the
systems
> that support it are geared toward dealing with "deadbeats" that don't want
> to pay. There's a need for the system, for those people who can't face the
> responsibility and those people are the people Ms. Hilary Clinton is angry
> at. The problem lies in the prejudice she holds or fuels that all NCPs are
> criminals.
>
> The tax payer will not stand for an increased cost to the system that
> ensures payments, the system itself needs a social-worker aspect, a family
> counsellor aspect, tha can work with both parents to ensure the parents
are
> being parents and splitting the parental duties fairly. The Child
> Support/Custody Order should be passed to this organisation and the funds
be
> pooled for child-care. Income, be it from welfare, unemployment insurance,
> interest, or a job, should be considered on both sides. Too often the CP
> considers the children as posessions, but this is another area of
> discussion. If the system was run effectively enough it might be
considered
> a goverment run bank. The income from both parents is funneled into this
> "bank", the transfers are adjusted to separate the child-care base-amount
> into a pooled "account" then the paycheck is passed on to the respective
> parent's real bank. This only accomodates direct-deposit workers, the
> extension of this would be complete integration with banking systems where
> any deposit would be re-routed through this system.
>
> This sounds huge, and orwellian to many I'm certain some of you are
cursing
> about my suggestion. The key is that accountability is in place. If CP
lives
> in a $2000/month home and lives off welfare, with undisclosed income
> sources, the social worker is responsible for adjusting the formula. The
> possibility of crooked social-workers is possible so you need a supervisor
> structure and a simple method for a NCP to raise the flag if there's
> something wrong. The cost of this would be huge but rather than have the
> tax-payer cover this, a small percentage of the net income of both parties
> pays for it. Suppose that the combined income for August was $3000, The
> amount of CS might be $500, the CS surcharge might be an additional $60 to
> 150. The reality is that the CP made $1000 and the NCP made $2000, He paid
> 2/3 of the $500 (333.33) and she paid the remainder ($166.5). Same goes
for
> the surcharge, $40 and $20 respectively. Oh, BTW... The $500 is based on
> some guideline, but it's realistic and shared. The $500 would still go to
> the CP but the NCP could file costs against it for reasonable expenses.
The
> social worker has the say.
>
> The Social Worker is expensive, If I estimate a social worker's wage at
> $20/hour, The surcharge would cover 36 hours. There may be additional
> charges for social-worker involvement, say the system allows 15-20 hours
of
> assistance included in the service. Anything more would be chargable with
> the option bank hours year-to-year. Less problems, less cost? They might
get
> a credit when they fisih the CS process.
>
> These are just ideas... comments are welcome, but fairness is expected.
>
> Papa
>
>
>

[Clark Simmons]

Exactly!

--

Regards, Clark in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
> did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
> isn't how it happens to be.
>
> How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a chance
> to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system. Only
> if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

[Clark Simmons]

Exactly!

--

Regards, Clark in Round Rock Texas USA
http://xld.com - Freedom's Home Page
http://xld.com/public/xldata/net.htm - ISP Service
God Bless America and her friends!



"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
> did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
> isn't how it happens to be.
>
> How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a chance
> to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system. Only
> if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/2003

[BB]

In article >, "teachrmama" > wrote:
>
>"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
>How
>> > > could you know the difference between the two?
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
>>
>> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support
>get
>> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
>
>Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The vast
>majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It is a
>politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to support
>their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse, then
>the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting "person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there is
not).

[BB]

In article >, "teachrmama" > wrote:
>
>"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
>How
>> > > could you know the difference between the two?
>> >
>> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
>>
>> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support
>get
>> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
>
>Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The vast
>majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It is a
>politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to support
>their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse, then
>the system can step in.

rriiiiigghhhtttt.....

Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral rights
to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...

Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something out.

Mother: No.

Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...

The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I mean
for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting "person"
to your children... and on and on...


they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between hands
(unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there is
not).

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
> did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
> isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do without
the system.

> How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
> to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
> if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
> did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
> isn't how it happens to be.

Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do without
the system.

> How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
chance
> to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
Only
> if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!

So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive change,
our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
request.

Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
circumstances change.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> > responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
> > did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> > system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
> > isn't how it happens to be.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
> people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
> the system.
>
> > How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
> chance
> > to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> > support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> > reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> > behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
> Only
> > if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!
>
> So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,
> our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
> agree.
==
Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
agreement
between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right to
"bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
same.
In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.
==
==
I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
> request.
>
> Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> circumstances change.
>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> > responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
> > did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> > system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
> > isn't how it happens to be.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
> people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
> the system.
>
> > How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
> chance
> > to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> > support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> > reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> > behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
> Only
> > if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!
>
> So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,
> our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
> agree.
==
Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
agreement
between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right to
"bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
same.
In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.
==
==
I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
> request.
>
> Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> circumstances change.
>
> Papa
>
>

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> > responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
> > did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> > system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
> > isn't how it happens to be.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
> people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
> the system.
>
> > How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
> chance
> > to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> > support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> > reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> > behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
> Only
> > if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!
>
> So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,

I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think that
the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was set
up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
have the mess we have today.

And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull in
the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that little
jewel in our Constitution!

> our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
> agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
> request.

Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?


>
> Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> circumstances change.

Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no interest
in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
> > responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the
system
> > did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
> > system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But
that
> > isn't how it happens to be.
>
> Yes, that would be nice, but they do have this power. The problem is that
> people can't get along well enough and don't have enough trust to do
without
> the system.
>
> > How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a
> chance
> > to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
> > support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
> > reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
> > behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system.
> Only
> > if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step
in!
>
> So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
change,

I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think that
the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was set
up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
have the mess we have today.

And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull in
the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that little
jewel in our Constitution!

> our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they both
> agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to you
> request.

Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?


>
> Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> circumstances change.

Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no interest
in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

[teachrmama]

"BB" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> In article >, "teachrmama"
> wrote:
> >
> >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
> >How
> >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> >>
> >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
> >get
> >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> >
> >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
> >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
> >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
> >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
> >the system can step in.
>
> rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
>
> Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
> to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
>
> Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.
>
> Mother: No.
>
> Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
>
> The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
> in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
> for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
> else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
> Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
> granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
> to your children... and on and on...
>
>
> they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
> (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
> not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

[teachrmama]

"BB" > wrote in message
ble.rogers.com...
> In article >, "teachrmama"
> wrote:
> >
> >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>
> >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
> >How
> >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> >> >
> >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> >>
> >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
support
> >get
> >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> >
> >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
vast
> >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
is a
> >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
support
> >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
then
> >the system can step in.
>
> rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
>
> Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
rights
> to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
>
> Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
out.
>
> Mother: No.
>
> Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
>
> The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
> in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
mean
> for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
> else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
> Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
> granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
"person"
> to your children... and on and on...
>
>
> they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
hands
> (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
is
> not).

Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
of other fun things.

[Moon Shyne]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BB" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >>
> > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
> > >How
> > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > >> >
> > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > >>
> > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> support
> > >get
> > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > >
> > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
> vast
> > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
> is a
> > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> support
> > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
> then
> > >the system can step in.
> >
> > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> >
> > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
> rights
> > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> >
> > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
> out.
> >
> > Mother: No.
> >
> > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> >
> > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
> > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
> mean
> > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
> > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
> > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
> > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> "person"
> > to your children... and on and on...
> >
> >
> > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
> hands
> > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
> is
> > not).
>
> Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
> on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.

Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you propose
when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child support?
Then what?


50/50 and no money
> changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> of other fun things.
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "BB" > wrote in message
> ble.rogers.com...
> > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > >>
> > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > >> ...
> > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats?
> > >How
> > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > >> >
> > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > >>
> > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> support
> > >get
> > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > >
> > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together? The
> vast
> > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported. It
> is a
> > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> support
> > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who refuse,
> then
> > >the system can step in.
> >
> > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> >
> > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
> rights
> > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> >
> > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
> out.
> >
> > Mother: No.
> >
> > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> >
> > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even though
> > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh.. I
> mean
> > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about everything
> > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or there.
> > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we have
> > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> "person"
> > to your children... and on and on...
> >
> >
> > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed between
> hands
> > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think there
> is
> > not).
>
> Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility back
> on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.

Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you propose
when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child support?
Then what?


50/50 and no money
> changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> of other fun things.
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> change,
> > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
both
> > agree.
> ==
> Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> agreement
> between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
to
> "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> same.
> In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.

I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out. The problem is it
takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> change,
> > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
both
> > agree.
> ==
> Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> agreement
> between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
to
> "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> same.
> In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the parents'.

I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out. The problem is it
takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> change,
>
> I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
> gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
> other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
> them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
> maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think
that
> the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was
set
> up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
> have the mess we have today.

I don't disagree with your observations of what we have today, the
adversarial system is the legal system of choice. This has it's place in
criminal law but mediation is often fruitless. This would involve at least
one 3rd-party as well because people cannot get along well enough to be
fair. They have resentment and revenge on their minds. The judge in my case
asked that my ex and I come to an agreement We could not get past the who
pays for court costs. The judge was left to decree it and impute my income.
There is no safe-haven? How can you protect those CPs that need support
without NCPs being caught in the system? Ok, so you call in a judge to
decide... well, that's the system again.

> And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull
in
> the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that
little
> jewel in our Constitution!

The government has the mission to protect it's citizens rights. It's not in
the constitution necessarily, but it's what the people (in some number)
wanted at some point. If a mother deserves CS, any amount, who must enforce
it? The Government!

> > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
both
> > agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to
you
> > request.
>
> Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
> system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?

Yes, Absolutely. I'm not saying our systems perfect or right, but some
attributes have merit. The system I'm under has the potential for
non-involvement. In my scenario they were not involved at first, but were
dragged in later when my circumstances changed. They are not much more than
a collection agency with very big, sharp, teeth.

> > Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> > system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> > circumstances change.
>
> Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no
interest
> in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
> flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

You're thinking in absolutes. If you do reach agreement, and your situation
is stable this system is workable. It is still very problematic and not
ideal.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number of
> > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> change,
>
> I don't agree! The problem is that one side KNOWS that they will get the
> gravy by just NOT getting along. They KNOW they have protections. The
> other side (the NCPs) are stuck with whatever the courts decide to do to
> them. If BOTH parents knew there was no hiding place for self-centered
> maneuverings--that THEY had to come up with a reasonable plan--I think
that
> the majority of the bickering would stop. It is BECAUSE the system was
set
> up to CREATE adversaries, rather than partners in child rearing--that we
> have the mess we have today.

I don't disagree with your observations of what we have today, the
adversarial system is the legal system of choice. This has it's place in
criminal law but mediation is often fruitless. This would involve at least
one 3rd-party as well because people cannot get along well enough to be
fair. They have resentment and revenge on their minds. The judge in my case
asked that my ex and I come to an agreement We could not get past the who
pays for court costs. The judge was left to decree it and impute my income.
There is no safe-haven? How can you protect those CPs that need support
without NCPs being caught in the system? Ok, so you call in a judge to
decide... well, that's the system again.

> And why on Earth do you think that the government has ANY right to "pull
in
> the reigns"? Who gave them that right? Tell me where you find that
little
> jewel in our Constitution!

The government has the mission to protect it's citizens rights. It's not in
the constitution necessarily, but it's what the people (in some number)
wanted at some point. If a mother deserves CS, any amount, who must enforce
it? The Government!

> > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
both
> > agree. I guess under your premise our system is as close as it gets to
you
> > request.
>
> Ah, but if the CP chooses to suck the big bucks and stay with the flawed
> system, the NCP is just plain old screwed, isn't he? How fair is that?

Yes, Absolutely. I'm not saying our systems perfect or right, but some
attributes have merit. The system I'm under has the potential for
non-involvement. In my scenario they were not involved at first, but were
dragged in later when my circumstances changed. They are not much more than
a collection agency with very big, sharp, teeth.

> > Get Real Teacher. The opt out option is great, but the CP can invoke the
> > system at will. It's almost practical to remain in the system except if
> > circumstances change.
>
> Well, if you enjoy being screwed by a system that has absolutely no
interest
> in you except as a wallet, more power to you. I, however, think that a
> flawed system cannot bring about fair results.

You're thinking in absolutes. If you do reach agreement, and your situation
is stable this system is workable. It is still very problematic and not
ideal.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
back
> on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> of other fun things.

Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is not
because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids is
stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.

If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
government got involved in the first place!

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
back
> on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> of other fun things.

Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is not
because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids is
stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.

If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
government got involved in the first place!

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number
of
> > > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> > change,
> > > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
> both
> > > agree.
> > ==
> > Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> > agreement
> > between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
> to
> > "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> > same.
> > In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the
parents'.
>
> I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out.
==
Cool--That's an anomaly. Treasure it :-)
==
The problem is it
> takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.
==
And, hopefully when that happens, the NCP can provide receipts
indicating he is current and the judge accepts that as CS and not a "gift."
Sooo many gotchas--It's like trying to negotiate a mine field.
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number
of
> > > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> > change,
> > > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
> both
> > > agree.
> > ==
> > Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> > agreement
> > between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
> to
> > "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> > same.
> > In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the
parents'.
>
> I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out.
==
Cool--That's an anomaly. Treasure it :-)
==
The problem is it
> takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.
==
And, hopefully when that happens, the NCP can provide receipts
indicating he is current and the judge accepts that as CS and not a "gift."
Sooo many gotchas--It's like trying to negotiate a mine field.
==
==
>
> Papa
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

PapaPolarbear wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> > changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> > divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> > of other fun things.
>
> Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is not
> because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids is
> stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.
>
> If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> government got involved in the first place!
>
> Papa

You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.

One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
mothers to expel fathers from the family.

Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?

[Kenneth S.]

PapaPolarbear wrote:
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> > changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet the
> > divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to lots
> > of other fun things.
>
> Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is not
> because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids is
> stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.
>
> If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> government got involved in the first place!
>
> Papa

You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.

One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
mothers to expel fathers from the family.

Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number
of
> > > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> > change,
> > > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
> both
> > > agree.
> > ==
> > Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> > agreement
> > between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
> to
> > "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> > same.
> > In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the
parents'.
>
> I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out. The problem is it
> takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.

Cases involving TANF, Medicaid, foster care, and youth authority commitment,
plus any cases with arrearages for closed out orders in those four
categories MUST be in the IV-D system and it doesn't matter whether the
parents agree or not.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > So you give them a chance, when do you pull in the reigns? The number
of
> > > people who do get along in not significant enough to warrant massive
> > change,
> > > our local system allows the parents to opt out of the system, if they
> both
> > > agree.
> > ==
> > Are you sure? Most jurisdictions require a judge's approval for any
> > agreement
> > between parents. The assertion is that the parents do not have the right
> to
> > "bargain away" the child's right to guideline support and enforcement of
> > same.
> > In other words, opting out is at the judge's discretion, not the
parents'.
>
> I'm absolutely sure. The parents can agree to opt out. The problem is it
> takes only one parent to re-instate this, no judicial interferance.

Cases involving TANF, Medicaid, foster care, and youth authority commitment,
plus any cases with arrearages for closed out orders in those four
categories MUST be in the IV-D system and it doesn't matter whether the
parents agree or not.

[...80MM..]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Chris Owens

Gee then you better continal letting the state be your parent then OK Chris.

[...80MM..]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Chris Owens

Gee then you better continal letting the state be your parent then OK Chris.

[teachrmama]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.

Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter by a
1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to him,
he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a rat's
behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered "subsequent"
and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?

And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long as
she finds subsequent men to support them?

[teachrmama]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.

Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter by a
1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to him,
he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a rat's
behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered "subsequent"
and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?

And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long as
she finds subsequent men to support them?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there
to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> > changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet
the
> > divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to
lots
> > of other fun things.
>
> Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is
not
> because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids
is
> stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.

I think that the ease of divorce and the rewards that women receive who go
through a divorce definitely add to the divorce rate, so, yet, it is
relevant. No marriage is 100% smooth--but if hitting a rough patch is
grounds for dumping the whole thing, then our children will continue to
suffer, because divorce is very hard on children!

> If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> government got involved in the first place!

Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you think
that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are willing to
let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high opinion
of fathers, do you?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there
to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change. 50/50 and no money
> > changes hands unless the 2 of you can agree on something else. I bet
the
> > divorce rate would fall, and the courts would find themselves free to
lots
> > of other fun things.
>
> Why do you insist on dragging the divorce rate into this? The divorce is
not
> because of the children and staying in a bad relationship because of kids
is
> stupid, it just demonstrates the disfunction of life.

I think that the ease of divorce and the rewards that women receive who go
through a divorce definitely add to the divorce rate, so, yet, it is
relevant. No marriage is 100% smooth--but if hitting a rough patch is
grounds for dumping the whole thing, then our children will continue to
suffer, because divorce is very hard on children!

> If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> government got involved in the first place!

Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you think
that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are willing to
let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high opinion
of fathers, do you?

[teachrmama]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BB" > wrote in message
> > ble.rogers.com...
> > > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >>
> > > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived
deatbeats?
> > > >How
> > > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> > support
> > > >get
> > > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > > >
> > > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together?
The
> > vast
> > > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported.
It
> > is a
> > > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> > support
> > > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who
refuse,
> > then
> > > >the system can step in.
> > >
> > > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> > >
> > > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
> > rights
> > > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> > > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> > >
> > > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
> > out.
> > >
> > > Mother: No.
> > >
> > > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> > >
> > > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even
though
> > > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh..
I
> > mean
> > > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about
everything
> > > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or
there.
> > > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we
have
> > > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> > "person"
> > > to your children... and on and on...
> > >
> > >
> > > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed
between
> > hands
> > > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think
there
> > is
> > > not).
> >
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there
to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.
>
> Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you
propose
> when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child
support?
> Then what?

I was responding to the scenario presented, Moon. As for fathers (or
mothers) who want nothing whatsoever to do with supporting and caring for
their children, despite mediation--THEY is who the system should be dealing
with.

[teachrmama]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "BB" > wrote in message
> > ble.rogers.com...
> > > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > . ..
> > > >>
> > > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > > >> ...
> > > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived
deatbeats?
> > > >How
> > > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > > >>
> > > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> > support
> > > >get
> > > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > > >
> > > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together?
The
> > vast
> > > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported.
It
> > is a
> > > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> > support
> > > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who
refuse,
> > then
> > > >the system can step in.
> > >
> > > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> > >
> > > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have moral
> > rights
> > > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean children
> > > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> > >
> > > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work something
> > out.
> > >
> > > Mother: No.
> > >
> > > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> > >
> > > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even
though
> > > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living (oh..
I
> > mean
> > > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about
everything
> > > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or
there.
> > > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we
have
> > > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> > "person"
> > > to your children... and on and on...
> > >
> > >
> > > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed
between
> > hands
> > > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think
there
> > is
> > > not).
> >
> > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is there
to
> > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
back
> > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.
>
> Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you
propose
> when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child
support?
> Then what?

I was responding to the scenario presented, Moon. As for fathers (or
mothers) who want nothing whatsoever to do with supporting and caring for
their children, despite mediation--THEY is who the system should be dealing
with.

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> > money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> > incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> > government got involved in the first place!
>
> Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you
think
> that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are willing
to
> let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high
opinion
> of fathers, do you?

No. It's not about hate and I'm not willing to generalize either. There are
many fathers, and some mothers (NCPs either way) who have no interest in
being a parent and if the system does not insist on some manner of payment
they'll just walk away.

Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not asking
for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take a
hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.

The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the tactics
they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not persecution.
They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop trying to
compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.

There's so much change that it's overwhelming, it's also difficult because
there are so many systems and no real interest in developing a common model
that works. The need for a system is obvious, the manner in which it
operates is what needs drastic change.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement no
> > money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> > incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> > government got involved in the first place!
>
> Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you
think
> that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are willing
to
> let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high
opinion
> of fathers, do you?

No. It's not about hate and I'm not willing to generalize either. There are
many fathers, and some mothers (NCPs either way) who have no interest in
being a parent and if the system does not insist on some manner of payment
they'll just walk away.

Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not asking
for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take a
hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.

The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the tactics
they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not persecution.
They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop trying to
compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.

There's so much change that it's overwhelming, it's also difficult because
there are so many systems and no real interest in developing a common model
that works. The need for a system is obvious, the manner in which it
operates is what needs drastic change.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
>
> One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> mothers to expel fathers from the family.

Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
reasonable for these situations.

> Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?

There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better long-term
benefit.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
>
> One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> mothers to expel fathers from the family.

Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
reasonable for these situations.

> Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?

There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better long-term
benefit.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > teachrmama wrote:
> > >
> > > It's the unfairness of
> > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
many
> into
> > > seeming deadbeats.
> >
> > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter by
a
> 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
him,
> he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
rat's
> behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
"subsequent"
> and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?

Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How much
the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were arguing
is cut-and-dry.

> And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
as
> she finds subsequent men to support them?

This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
selectively good catholic.

Maybe a nice discussion on whether seduction by a woman is a form of rape is
in order.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> ...
> > teachrmama wrote:
> > >
> > > It's the unfairness of
> > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
many
> into
> > > seeming deadbeats.
> >
> > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter by
a
> 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
him,
> he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
rat's
> behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
"subsequent"
> and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?

Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How much
the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were arguing
is cut-and-dry.

> And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
as
> she finds subsequent men to support them?

This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
selectively good catholic.

Maybe a nice discussion on whether seduction by a woman is a form of rape is
in order.

Papa

[gini52]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
===
You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
doubled after we had
two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you feel
reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
families? As far
as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior to
permitting an intact family to have more children.
===
===
>
> Chris Owens

[gini52]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
===
You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
doubled after we had
two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you feel
reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
families? As far
as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior to
permitting an intact family to have more children.
===
===
>
> Chris Owens

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > teachrmama wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's the unfairness of
> > > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
> many
> > into
> > > > seeming deadbeats.
> > >
> > > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > > not have children you cannot afford, period.
> >
> > Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter
by
> a
> > 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
> him,
> > he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
> rat's
> > behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
> "subsequent"
> > and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?
>
> Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
much
> the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
arguing
> is cut-and-dry.

You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another child
is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for a
judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe that
the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?


>
> > And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
> as
> > she finds subsequent men to support them?
>
> This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
> has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> selectively good catholic.

Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after child,
but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
Interesting......

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > teachrmama wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's the unfairness of
> > > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
> many
> > into
> > > > seeming deadbeats.
> > >
> > > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > > not have children you cannot afford, period.
> >
> > Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter
by
> a
> > 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
> him,
> > he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
> rat's
> > behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
> "subsequent"
> > and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?
>
> Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
much
> the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
arguing
> is cut-and-dry.

You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another child
is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for a
judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe that
the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?


>
> > And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
> as
> > she finds subsequent men to support them?
>
> This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
> has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> selectively good catholic.

Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after child,
but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
Interesting......

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement
no
> > > money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> > > incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> > > government got involved in the first place!
> >
> > Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you
> think
> > that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are
willing
> to
> > let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high
> opinion
> > of fathers, do you?
>
> No. It's not about hate and I'm not willing to generalize either. There
are
> many fathers, and some mothers (NCPs either way) who have no interest in
> being a parent and if the system does not insist on some manner of payment
> they'll just walk away.

You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to walk
away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about here, in
your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If every
driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge fines
just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of drivers
do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you that
NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they all
deserve it?

>
> Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
asking
> for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take a
> hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.

What percentage?

>
> The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
tactics
> they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not persecution.
> They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop trying
to
> compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.

Is the system accessible to NCPs?

>
> There's so much change that it's overwhelming, it's also difficult because
> there are so many systems and no real interest in developing a common
model
> that works. The need for a system is obvious, the manner in which it
> operates is what needs drastic change.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > If you're suggesting that if the CP and NCP can't reach an agreement
no
> > > money will change hands you've swung pedulum the other way. There's no
> > > incentive for the NCP to resolve things and pay CS. This is why the
> > > government got involved in the first place!
> >
> > Why? Do you think that fathers hate their children that much? Do you
> think
> > that they are so bent on revenge against their exes that they are
willing
> to
> > let their children languish in poverty? You don't have a very high
> opinion
> > of fathers, do you?
>
> No. It's not about hate and I'm not willing to generalize either. There
are
> many fathers, and some mothers (NCPs either way) who have no interest in
> being a parent and if the system does not insist on some manner of payment
> they'll just walk away.

You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to walk
away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about here, in
your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If every
driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge fines
just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of drivers
do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you that
NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they all
deserve it?

>
> Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
asking
> for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take a
> hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.

What percentage?

>
> The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
tactics
> they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not persecution.
> They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop trying
to
> compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.

Is the system accessible to NCPs?

>
> There's so much change that it's overwhelming, it's also difficult because
> there are so many systems and no real interest in developing a common
model
> that works. The need for a system is obvious, the manner in which it
> operates is what needs drastic change.

[Paul Fritz]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Chris Owens

Bull........intact familes have additional kids all the time, they just
lower the amount of resources each kid gets.........there is no guaranteed
SOL......except when the guvmint sticks its nose in.


>
>
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----

[Paul Fritz]

"Chris Owens" > wrote in message
...
> teachrmama wrote:
> >
> > It's the unfairness of
> > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many
into
> > seeming deadbeats.
>
> I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> not have children you cannot afford, period.
>
> Chris Owens

Bull........intact familes have additional kids all the time, they just
lower the amount of resources each kid gets.........there is no guaranteed
SOL......except when the guvmint sticks its nose in.


>
>
>
>
> -----= 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! =-----

[Paul Fritz]

Once again............

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "BB" > wrote in message
> > > ble.rogers.com...
> > > > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived
> deatbeats?
> > > > >How
> > > > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> > > support
> > > > >get
> > > > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > > > >
> > > > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together?
> The
> > > vast
> > > > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported.
> It
> > > is a
> > > > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> > > support
> > > > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who
> refuse,
> > > then
> > > > >the system can step in.
> > > >
> > > > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> > > >
> > > > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have
moral
> > > rights
> > > > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean
children
> > > > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> > > >
> > > > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work
something
> > > out.
> > > >
> > > > Mother: No.
> > > >
> > > > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> > > >
> > > > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even
> though
> > > > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > > > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living
(oh..
> I
> > > mean
> > > > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about
> everything
> > > > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or
> there.
> > > > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we
> have
> > > > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> > > "person"
> > > > to your children... and on and on...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed
> between
> > > hands
> > > > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think
> there
> > > is
> > > > not).
> > >
> > > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is
there
> to
> > > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.
> >
> > Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you
> propose
> > when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child
> support?
> > Then what?
>
> I was responding to the scenario presented, Moon. As for fathers (or
> mothers) who want nothing whatsoever to do with supporting and caring for
> their children, despite mediation--THEY is who the system should be
dealing
> with.


Stumpy tries to hijack a thread ........somethings never change.

>

[Paul Fritz]

Once again............

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "BB" > wrote in message
> > > ble.rogers.com...
> > > > In article >, "teachrmama"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > > . ..
> > > > >>
> > > > >> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> > > > >> ...
> > > > >> > > How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived
> deatbeats?
> > > > >How
> > > > >> > > could you know the difference between the two?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need
> > > support
> > > > >get
> > > > >> it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?
> > > > >
> > > > >Why not? Why can't the parents sit down and discuss it together?
> The
> > > vast
> > > > >majority of parents WANT their children to be adequately supported.
> It
> > > is a
> > > > >politically motivated myth that says that fathers must be forced to
> > > support
> > > > >their kids. Let the PARENTS work it out! And for the few who
> refuse,
> > > then
> > > > >the system can step in.
> > > >
> > > > rriiiiigghhhtttt.....
> > > >
> > > > Mother: I want half of everything (even though she may not have
moral
> > > rights
> > > > to half). I want standard of living support for (oh.. I mean
children
> > > > support), I want spousal support and just about everything else...
> > > >
> > > > Father: Well, that doesn't seam right or fair. Can't we work
something
> > > out.
> > > >
> > > > Mother: No.
> > > >
> > > > Father: hmm.. I guess our only recourse is the "system" Okay...
> > > >
> > > > The System: The mother shall get half plus 10% of everything (even
> though
> > > > in some cases she has no moral rights to half). She shall get a
> > > > ridicoulous high amount of child support for standard of living
(oh..
> I
> > > mean
> > > > for the children), she shall get spousal support and just about
> everything
> > > > else... and you lose access to the kids except for a night here or
> there.
> > > > Plus you shall pay for day care, and most other things. And since we
> have
> > > > granted the majority of custody to the mother you are now a visiting
> > > "person"
> > > > to your children... and on and on...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > they both agree), children should be 50/50 with no money passed
> between
> > > hands
> > > > (unless there is some other cicumstance - but in most cases I think
> there
> > > is
> > > > not).
> > >
> > > Oh, but it only works that way because mother KNOWS the system is
there
> to
> > > enforce her demands. Take the system away and dump the responsibility
> back
> > > on the parents, and Mother's attitude might change.
> >
> > Scuse me, it's not always the mother, thankyewverymuch. What would you
> propose
> > when dad refuses to take his 50% time share, and refuses to pay child
> support?
> > Then what?
>
> I was responding to the scenario presented, Moon. As for fathers (or
> mothers) who want nothing whatsoever to do with supporting and caring for
> their children, despite mediation--THEY is who the system should be
dealing
> with.


Stumpy tries to hijack a thread ........somethings never change.

>

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.

Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of factors
for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your spouse"
ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.

>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
long-term
> benefit.

We have been educating our youth about the impact of divorce. They have
lived through an accelerated divorce rate that took off in the early 70's
and has gotten worse. Young people are not getting married at anywhere near
the rates they used to marry. Young men have had their eyes opened to the
fact they can lose at least half of their assets, pay CS for years, get
kicked out of their own homes, become a visitor in their children's lives,
and be forced to subsidize a woman's lifestyle.

And the government policies in place provide predictable outcomes for women
who decide to renege on their marriage vows. Sadly, the lesson becomes
women can use the government's clout to help them be free and independent
and the government will operate as their surrogate husband to ensure they
have the financial resources they need.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.

Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of factors
for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your spouse"
ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.

>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
long-term
> benefit.

We have been educating our youth about the impact of divorce. They have
lived through an accelerated divorce rate that took off in the early 70's
and has gotten worse. Young people are not getting married at anywhere near
the rates they used to marry. Young men have had their eyes opened to the
fact they can lose at least half of their assets, pay CS for years, get
kicked out of their own homes, become a visitor in their children's lives,
and be forced to subsidize a woman's lifestyle.

And the government policies in place provide predictable outcomes for women
who decide to renege on their marriage vows. Sadly, the lesson becomes
women can use the government's clout to help them be free and independent
and the government will operate as their surrogate husband to ensure they
have the financial resources they need.

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > teachrmama wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's the unfairness of
> > > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
> many
> > into
> > > > seeming deadbeats.
> > >
> > > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > > not have children you cannot afford, period.
> >
> > Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter
by
> a
> > 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
> him,
> > he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
> rat's
> > behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
> "subsequent"
> > and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?
>
> Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
much
> the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
arguing
> is cut-and-dry.

Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head. The
susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?


>
> > And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
> as
> > she finds subsequent men to support them?
>
> This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
> has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> selectively good catholic.

So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and unconstitutional

>
> Maybe a nice discussion on whether seduction by a woman is a form of rape
is
> in order.
>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chris Owens" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > teachrmama wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's the unfairness of
> > > > thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
> > > > complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so
> many
> > into
> > > > seeming deadbeats.
> > >
> > > I'll buy lack of fairness in imputed incomes and accountability
> > > of CPs; but, not in the issue of future children. If you cannot
> > > afford your current obligations AND another child, then you have
> > > NO business having another child. It's that simple; you just do
> > > not have children you cannot afford, period.
> >
> > Hmmm.... Try this one out: Man finds ut he has a 13 year old daughter
by
> a
> > 1 night stand that he never knew about. When this information comes to
> him,
> > he is married with 2 children. Judge tells man that he doesn't give a
> rat's
> > behind about his two children by his wife--they are considered
> "subsequent"
> > and have no right to any consideration whatsoever. You find this fair?
>
> Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
much
> the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
arguing
> is cut-and-dry.

Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head. The
susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?


>
> > And how about Mom? Is it ok for her to have subsequent children as long
> as
> > she finds subsequent men to support them?
>
> This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only she
> has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> selectively good catholic.

So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and unconstitutional

>
> Maybe a nice discussion on whether seduction by a woman is a form of rape
is
> in order.
>
> Papa
>
>

[GudGye11]

In article >, "Paul Fritz"
> writes:

>Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head. The
>susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
>judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?

Actually, that's not entirely true, Paul. Let me illustrate:

Let's say a man is married, and has three children. The man then has an
extra-marital affair, which produces another child. The mother of that new
child then goes to court and obtains the usual, standard child support. Let's
then say that the wife has had enough with her husband's shenanigans...and SHE
then files for divorce. If she obtains the requisite child support, she'll
find that her children, though they were born first, do not get the same
consideration by the courts pertaining to levels of child support.

So in the cat-and-mouse game of child support, what it really boils down to is
that it's not the ages of the children that dictate who gets the most child
support, it's which mother gets to the courthouse first.
Now...naturally...most of the time, it's the mother of the oldest children.
But there is that distinction, that rather being based on age, it's simply who
beats down the courthouse door first.

[GudGye11]

In article >, "Paul Fritz"
> writes:

>Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head. The
>susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
>judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?

Actually, that's not entirely true, Paul. Let me illustrate:

Let's say a man is married, and has three children. The man then has an
extra-marital affair, which produces another child. The mother of that new
child then goes to court and obtains the usual, standard child support. Let's
then say that the wife has had enough with her husband's shenanigans...and SHE
then files for divorce. If she obtains the requisite child support, she'll
find that her children, though they were born first, do not get the same
consideration by the courts pertaining to levels of child support.

So in the cat-and-mouse game of child support, what it really boils down to is
that it's not the ages of the children that dictate who gets the most child
support, it's which mother gets to the courthouse first.
Now...naturally...most of the time, it's the mother of the oldest children.
But there is that distinction, that rather being based on age, it's simply who
beats down the courthouse door first.

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.

Add this to the long line of propaganda that you have swallowed hook line
and sinker.


>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
long-term
> benefit.

Will not do a bit of good when there is a financial incentive to leave a
marriage.

>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.

Add this to the long line of propaganda that you have swallowed hook line
and sinker.


>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
long-term
> benefit.

Will not do a bit of good when there is a financial incentive to leave a
marriage.

>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Fritz"
> > writes:
>
> >Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
The
> >susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> >judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> Actually, that's not entirely true, Paul. Let me illustrate:
>
> Let's say a man is married, and has three children. The man then has an
> extra-marital affair, which produces another child. The mother of that
new
> child then goes to court and obtains the usual, standard child support.
Let's
> then say that the wife has had enough with her husband's shenanigans...and
SHE
> then files for divorce. If she obtains the requisite child support,
she'll
> find that her children, though they were born first, do not get the same
> consideration by the courts pertaining to levels of child support.
>
> So in the cat-and-mouse game of child support, what it really boils down
to is
> that it's not the ages of the children that dictate who gets the most
child
> support, it's which mother gets to the courthouse first.
> Now...naturally...most of the time, it's the mother of the oldest
children.
> But there is that distinction, that rather being based on age, it's simply
who
> beats down the courthouse door first.

My point was based upon the comments of the judge.....but your point further
proves how bad it has gotten.

[Paul Fritz]

"GudGye11" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Paul Fritz"
> > writes:
>
> >Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
The
> >susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> >judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> Actually, that's not entirely true, Paul. Let me illustrate:
>
> Let's say a man is married, and has three children. The man then has an
> extra-marital affair, which produces another child. The mother of that
new
> child then goes to court and obtains the usual, standard child support.
Let's
> then say that the wife has had enough with her husband's shenanigans...and
SHE
> then files for divorce. If she obtains the requisite child support,
she'll
> find that her children, though they were born first, do not get the same
> consideration by the courts pertaining to levels of child support.
>
> So in the cat-and-mouse game of child support, what it really boils down
to is
> that it's not the ages of the children that dictate who gets the most
child
> support, it's which mother gets to the courthouse first.
> Now...naturally...most of the time, it's the mother of the oldest
children.
> But there is that distinction, that rather being based on age, it's simply
who
> beats down the courthouse door first.

My point was based upon the comments of the judge.....but your point further
proves how bad it has gotten.

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
> already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another
child
> is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for a
> judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
> because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe that
> the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?

Who made the situation unfair? Whose misdirected actions placed himself, and
(indirectly) his children in a position of responsibility for this
first-born child. Hey. I'm not saying the amount's unfair, I'm telling you
that he has a responsibility and the fact that he has two children is not
relevant to that fact.

At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat, simply
irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a responsibility.
My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support and
the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness. Perhaps your
husband/boyfriend shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a change,
but he's still responsible.

> > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
she
> > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > selectively good catholic.
>
> Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
child,
> but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> Interesting......

You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible at
all, but the system doesn't have control over that.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
> already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another
child
> is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for a
> judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
> because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe that
> the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?

Who made the situation unfair? Whose misdirected actions placed himself, and
(indirectly) his children in a position of responsibility for this
first-born child. Hey. I'm not saying the amount's unfair, I'm telling you
that he has a responsibility and the fact that he has two children is not
relevant to that fact.

At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat, simply
irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a responsibility.
My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support and
the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness. Perhaps your
husband/boyfriend shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a change,
but he's still responsible.

> > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
she
> > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > selectively good catholic.
>
> Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
child,
> but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> Interesting......

You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible at
all, but the system doesn't have control over that.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
> much
> > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> arguing
> > is cut-and-dry.
>
> Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
The
> susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?

No sir that's a draft.

The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the determination
of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he was
bound to that.

The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values may
be "wrong" but those are his bounds.

The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do suppose
that can happen?

> > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
she
> > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > selectively good catholic.
>
> So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
unconstitutional

More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
constitutional issue.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half the
> > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right. How
> much
> > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> arguing
> > is cut-and-dry.
>
> Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
The
> susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?

No sir that's a draft.

The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the determination
of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he was
bound to that.

The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values may
be "wrong" but those are his bounds.

The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do suppose
that can happen?

> > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
she
> > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in extreme
> > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > selectively good catholic.
>
> So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
unconstitutional

More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
constitutional issue.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> doubled after we had
> two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
feel
> reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> families? As far
> as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior to
> permitting an intact family to have more children.

The CP having further children is not a CS issue. It really has nothing to
do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but that's
not a criminal code infraction is it.

As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?

Cameron

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> doubled after we had
> two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
feel
> reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> families? As far
> as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior to
> permitting an intact family to have more children.

The CP having further children is not a CS issue. It really has nothing to
do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but that's
not a criminal code infraction is it.

As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?

Cameron

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of
factors
> for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your spouse"
> ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
> relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.

Myth or not... It was the accepted truth. Men may not rteport because it
would be embarrassing, but that's not the point.

> > There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather
than
> > focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why
don't
> > we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising
the
> > impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
> long-term
> > benefit.
>
> We have been educating our youth about the impact of divorce. They have
> lived through an accelerated divorce rate that took off in the early 70's
> and has gotten worse. Young people are not getting married at anywhere
near
> the rates they used to marry. Young men have had their eyes opened to the
> fact they can lose at least half of their assets, pay CS for years, get
> kicked out of their own homes, become a visitor in their children's lives,
> and be forced to subsidize a woman's lifestyle.

I did not suggest educating them on the impact of divorce. That's a wise
second lesson, but traditionally the parents are so high-pressure to marry
they nearly force marriage on the children. I think this is more prevelant
in european families.

> And the government policies in place provide predictable outcomes for
women
> who decide to renege on their marriage vows. Sadly, the lesson becomes
> women can use the government's clout to help them be free and independent
> and the government will operate as their surrogate husband to ensure they
> have the financial resources they need.

Yep... cool ain't it. They figured out how to use the system and we let
them!

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of
factors
> for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your spouse"
> ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
> relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.

Myth or not... It was the accepted truth. Men may not rteport because it
would be embarrassing, but that's not the point.

> > There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather
than
> > focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why
don't
> > we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising
the
> > impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better
> long-term
> > benefit.
>
> We have been educating our youth about the impact of divorce. They have
> lived through an accelerated divorce rate that took off in the early 70's
> and has gotten worse. Young people are not getting married at anywhere
near
> the rates they used to marry. Young men have had their eyes opened to the
> fact they can lose at least half of their assets, pay CS for years, get
> kicked out of their own homes, become a visitor in their children's lives,
> and be forced to subsidize a woman's lifestyle.

I did not suggest educating them on the impact of divorce. That's a wise
second lesson, but traditionally the parents are so high-pressure to marry
they nearly force marriage on the children. I think this is more prevelant
in european families.

> And the government policies in place provide predictable outcomes for
women
> who decide to renege on their marriage vows. Sadly, the lesson becomes
> women can use the government's clout to help them be free and independent
> and the government will operate as their surrogate husband to ensure they
> have the financial resources they need.

Yep... cool ain't it. They figured out how to use the system and we let
them!

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to walk
> away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about here,
in
> your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If every
> driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge fines
> just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
drivers
> do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you that
> NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
> ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
> ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they all
> deserve it?

Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that the
majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the problem.
It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
panic.

> > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> asking
> > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take
a
> > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
>
> What percentage?

Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was formed
based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.

> > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> tactics
> > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
persecution.
> > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
trying
> to
> > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
>
> Is the system accessible to NCPs?

Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to walk
> away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about here,
in
> your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If every
> driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge fines
> just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
drivers
> do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you that
> NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
> ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
> ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they all
> deserve it?

Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that the
majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the problem.
It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
panic.

> > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> asking
> > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They take
a
> > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
>
> What percentage?

Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was formed
based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.

> > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> tactics
> > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
persecution.
> > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
trying
> to
> > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
>
> Is the system accessible to NCPs?

Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > doubled after we had
> > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> feel
> > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> > families? As far
> > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
to
> > permitting an intact family to have more children.
>
> The CP having further children is not a CS issue. It really has nothing to
> do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
that's
> not a criminal code infraction is it.
>
> As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
> can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
==
It's really very simple--A no-brainer. Follow the same financial
requirements that intact families are
bound by and split the cost between the parents. Beyond that is an
unconstitutional
government intrusion into the private lives of individuals.
==
==
>
> Cameron
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > doubled after we had
> > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> feel
> > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> > families? As far
> > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
to
> > permitting an intact family to have more children.
>
> The CP having further children is not a CS issue. It really has nothing to
> do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
that's
> not a criminal code infraction is it.
>
> As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
> can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
==
It's really very simple--A no-brainer. Follow the same financial
requirements that intact families are
bound by and split the cost between the parents. Beyond that is an
unconstitutional
government intrusion into the private lives of individuals.
==
==
>
> Cameron
>
>

[Kenneth S.]

I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)

In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
one-sided commitment?

Secondly, with 50 percent of U.S. marriages ending in divorce, how many
of these millions of divorces resulted from husbands attacking wives?
Very, very few, I think. But you would make that tiny proportion the
basis for continuation of the present situation where wives are provided
-- via things like "child support," alimony, and community property laws
-- with major financial incentives to expel their husbands from the
family.

Most certainly, I agree with you that it is necessary to educate people
-- particularly young men -- about the realities of marriage. I
strongly suspect that, if young men knew about the realities, they would
be far less willing to enter into marriage at all. A male boycott of
marriage might be the first step towards reform, just as boycotts of
businesses that supported segregation led to the reform of the Jim Crow
laws in the South.

More generally, however, I think the correct lesson to draw from the
present mess is that government intervention -- specially in intimate
personal matters such as individual marriages -- nearly always is a
recipe for disaster. You just don't want to put such matters into the
hands of politicians or bureaucrats. What they do is try to enlarge
their own power by pandering to special interest groups (notably, in
this context, the feminists). The best thing would be to privatize the
whole thing. Let couples make their own arrangements for marriage and
divorce.


PapaPolarbear wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.
>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better long-term
> benefit.
>
> Papa

[Kenneth S.]

I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)

In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
one-sided commitment?

Secondly, with 50 percent of U.S. marriages ending in divorce, how many
of these millions of divorces resulted from husbands attacking wives?
Very, very few, I think. But you would make that tiny proportion the
basis for continuation of the present situation where wives are provided
-- via things like "child support," alimony, and community property laws
-- with major financial incentives to expel their husbands from the
family.

Most certainly, I agree with you that it is necessary to educate people
-- particularly young men -- about the realities of marriage. I
strongly suspect that, if young men knew about the realities, they would
be far less willing to enter into marriage at all. A male boycott of
marriage might be the first step towards reform, just as boycotts of
businesses that supported segregation led to the reform of the Jim Crow
laws in the South.

More generally, however, I think the correct lesson to draw from the
present mess is that government intervention -- specially in intimate
personal matters such as individual marriages -- nearly always is a
recipe for disaster. You just don't want to put such matters into the
hands of politicians or bureaucrats. What they do is try to enlarge
their own power by pandering to special interest groups (notably, in
this context, the feminists). The best thing would be to privatize the
whole thing. Let couples make their own arrangements for marriage and
divorce.


PapaPolarbear wrote:
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > You are correct, Papa, to give careful consideration to the incentive
> > factor. However, your perspective is too narrow.
> >
> > One of the serious, but unrecognized, problems of the present system is
> > the incentive pattern created for splitting up families. The
> > combination of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, plus generous CS
> > enforced in an oppressive manner, has provided major incentives for
> > mothers to expel fathers from the family.
>
> Many of the reasons it's become easy to seperate/divorce is that there has
> been a history of the male in the relationship being the violent one, and
> the woman feels trapped. The need for an easy escape and protection is
> reasonable for these situations.
>
> > Why, when we now know so much about the extremely damaging effects of
> > fatherless families, do we tell mothers that, as soon as they kick their
> > husbands out, the government will rush to their sides, and ensure that
> > they can extort large amounts of tax-free money from the husbands they
> > have discarded? Beats me! Is it possible that this has something to do
> > with politics, and the fact that men have no political clout in matters
> > where the interests of the two sexes are in conflict?
>
> There are so many reasons. I'm sure I don't know them all, but rather than
> focusing on making divorce tougher (it is tough in so many ways) why don't
> we help educate our youth about making the right choices and realising the
> impacts? I know we all try, but more focus on that may be a better long-term
> benefit.
>
> Papa

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
> > already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another
> child
> > is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for
a
> > judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
> > because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe
that
> > the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?
>
> Who made the situation unfair? Whose misdirected actions placed himself,
and
> (indirectly) his children in a position of responsibility for this
> first-born child. Hey. I'm not saying the amount's unfair, I'm telling you
> that he has a responsibility and the fact that he has two children is not
> relevant to that fact.
>
> At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,

You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?

simply
> irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a responsibility.

Children who exist and draw breath are IRRELEVANT? IRRELEVANT!! You are a
crude, crude man!


> My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support and
> the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness.

Fairness--but not to the irrelevant children of this world.

Perhaps your
> husband shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
> should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a change,
> but he's still responsible.

And would you care to point out to me where I said he isn't responsible for
the child? Go ahead--do a long and thorough search. You will NEVER find
such a statement. But you will find that I have many times stated that we
both want the child to receive necessary support.

And what about Slutty Mummy who has brought into this world many children
thatshe can't support? Where does her responsibility kick in? Or does it?
Since working would interrupt her drinking.

>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
> child,
> > but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> > Interesting......
>
> You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible
at
> all, but the system doesn't have control over that.

The system YOU so clearly support most certainly DOES have control over it!
Have you not read about the MEN who have been ordered to have no more
children because they are not paying for the children they DO have? You
need to do quite a bit more research before you declare the system to be
powerless in this area. The system simply does not choose to exert the same
control over women as it does over men.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You missed the question--do you, personally, find it fair that 2
> > already-existing children could be plunged into povertybecause another
> child
> > is discovered to have been born sooner? Do you think that it is ok for
a
> > judge to say "Those 2 children are worth squat in the eyes of the law
> > because of the existence of this other child." Do you truly believe
that
> > the older child has so much value that the other two lose all value?
>
> Who made the situation unfair? Whose misdirected actions placed himself,
and
> (indirectly) his children in a position of responsibility for this
> first-born child. Hey. I'm not saying the amount's unfair, I'm telling you
> that he has a responsibility and the fact that he has two children is not
> relevant to that fact.
>
> At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,

You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?

simply
> irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a responsibility.

Children who exist and draw breath are IRRELEVANT? IRRELEVANT!! You are a
crude, crude man!


> My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support and
> the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness.

Fairness--but not to the irrelevant children of this world.

Perhaps your
> husband shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
> should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a change,
> but he's still responsible.

And would you care to point out to me where I said he isn't responsible for
the child? Go ahead--do a long and thorough search. You will NEVER find
such a statement. But you will find that I have many times stated that we
both want the child to receive necessary support.

And what about Slutty Mummy who has brought into this world many children
thatshe can't support? Where does her responsibility kick in? Or does it?
Since working would interrupt her drinking.

>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
> child,
> > but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> > Interesting......
>
> You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible
at
> all, but the system doesn't have control over that.

The system YOU so clearly support most certainly DOES have control over it!
Have you not read about the MEN who have been ordered to have no more
children because they are not paying for the children they DO have? You
need to do quite a bit more research before you declare the system to be
powerless in this area. The system simply does not choose to exert the same
control over women as it does over men.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.

Oh, BS!! Judges vary from the guidelines any old time they want to--they
are not in the least bit bound by them!!

>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.

Research more carefully. No judge in family court is bound by anything
other than his own opinion.

>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?

Not as long as judges have total discretion and are not answerable to
anyone.

>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

Men must pay--they "delivered the package." Women do not have to pay a
penny--they can sit on their butts and wait for the judge to order daddy to
pay. You don't see the woman as having more rights?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.

Oh, BS!! Judges vary from the guidelines any old time they want to--they
are not in the least bit bound by them!!

>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.

Research more carefully. No judge in family court is bound by anything
other than his own opinion.

>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?

Not as long as judges have total discretion and are not answerable to
anyone.

>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

Men must pay--they "delivered the package." Women do not have to pay a
penny--they can sit on their butts and wait for the judge to order daddy to
pay. You don't see the woman as having more rights?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > doubled after we had
> > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> feel
> > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> > families? As far
> > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
to
> > permitting an intact family to have more children.
>
> The CP having further children is not a CS issue.

Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP is
also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty Mummy is
supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it is
being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?

It really has nothing to
> do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
that's
> not a criminal code infraction is it.

You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!

>
> As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
> can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?

Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
settles it, huh?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > doubled after we had
> > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> feel
> > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for intact
> > families? As far
> > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
to
> > permitting an intact family to have more children.
>
> The CP having further children is not a CS issue.

Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP is
also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty Mummy is
supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it is
being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?

It really has nothing to
> do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
that's
> not a criminal code infraction is it.

You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!

>
> As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the system
> can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?

Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
settles it, huh?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of
> factors
> > for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your
spouse"
> > ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
> > relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.
>
> Myth or not... It was the accepted truth. Men may not rteport because it
> would be embarrassing, but that's not the point.

It was also the accepted truth that Vulcan, God of Fire caused volcanoes by
working at his forge hammering out spears and armor for the other gods.
Until the real truth was discovered. In this case, Sanford Braver has
presented the truth, and your "men are violent" truth has become a myth.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
> > Dr. Sanford Braver did an interesting study on the ranking order of
> factors
> > for mothers who initiated divorce. "Violence between you and your
spouse"
> > ranked #16. The assumption that males have a history of violence in
> > relationships and that creates the high divorce rate is based on myth.
>
> Myth or not... It was the accepted truth. Men may not rteport because it
> would be embarrassing, but that's not the point.

It was also the accepted truth that Vulcan, God of Fire caused volcanoes by
working at his forge hammering out spears and armor for the other gods.
Until the real truth was discovered. In this case, Sanford Braver has
presented the truth, and your "men are violent" truth has become a myth.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to
walk
> > away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about
here,
> in
> > your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> > parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If
every
> > driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge
fines
> > just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
> drivers
> > do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you
that
> > NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
> > ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
> > ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they
all
> > deserve it?
>
> Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that
the
> majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the
problem.
> It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
> panic.

Then why are the majority being treated as if they are guilty? WHY can't
the system just deal with the guilty? You never answer that question!

>
> > > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> > asking
> > > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They
take
> a
> > > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
> >
> > What percentage?
>
> Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was formed
> based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.

That's right! It was formed to deal with deadbeats--and has expanded to
deal with anyone who has the potential to be a deadbeat, whether they have
ever demonstrated a propensity in that direction or not!

>
> > > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> > tactics
> > > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
> persecution.
> > > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
> trying
> > to
> > > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> > > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> > > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
> >
> > Is the system accessible to NCPs?
>
> Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!! You're such a card, PPB!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to
walk
> > away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about
here,
> in
> > your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> > parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If
every
> > driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge
fines
> > just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
> drivers
> > do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you
that
> > NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try to
> > ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones who
> > ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they
all
> > deserve it?
>
> Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that
the
> majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the
problem.
> It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
> panic.

Then why are the majority being treated as if they are guilty? WHY can't
the system just deal with the guilty? You never answer that question!

>
> > > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> > asking
> > > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They
take
> a
> > > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
> >
> > What percentage?
>
> Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was formed
> based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.

That's right! It was formed to deal with deadbeats--and has expanded to
deal with anyone who has the potential to be a deadbeat, whether they have
ever demonstrated a propensity in that direction or not!

>
> > > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> > tactics
> > > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
> persecution.
> > > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
> trying
> > to
> > > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society (work).
> > > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and brought
> > > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
> >
> > Is the system accessible to NCPs?
>
> Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!! You're such a card, PPB!

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights,

No they don't. The one who's momm makes it to the court house door the
fastest is 'entitled' to a larger share of income than any susequent ones.

> the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.

You are FOS


>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?

Whoosh......there goes the point far over your head once again.


>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

FOS once again.........a woman can abort, abandon or adopt, none of those
options are availible to the father against the wishes of the mother.

BTW......conceiving does not equal gestation and birth.


>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights,

No they don't. The one who's momm makes it to the court house door the
fastest is 'entitled' to a larger share of income than any susequent ones.

> the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.

You are FOS


>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?

Whoosh......there goes the point far over your head once again.


>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

FOS once again.........a woman can abort, abandon or adopt, none of those
options are availible to the father against the wishes of the mother.

BTW......conceiving does not equal gestation and birth.


>
> Papa
>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to
> walk
> > > away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about
> here,
> > in
> > > your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> > > parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If
> every
> > > driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge
> fines
> > > just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
> > drivers
> > > do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you
> that
> > > NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try
to
> > > ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones
who
> > > ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they
> all
> > > deserve it?
> >
> > Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that
> the
> > majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the
> problem.
> > It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
> > panic.
>
> Then why are the majority being treated as if they are guilty? WHY can't
> the system just deal with the guilty? You never answer that question!
>
> >
> > > > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> > > asking
> > > > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They
> take
> > a
> > > > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
> > >
> > > What percentage?
> >
> > Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was
formed
> > based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.
>
> That's right! It was formed to deal with deadbeats--and has expanded to
> deal with anyone who has the potential to be a deadbeat, whether they have
> ever demonstrated a propensity in that direction or not!
>
> >
> > > > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> > > tactics
> > > > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
> > persecution.
> > > > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society
(work).
> > > > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and
brought
> > > > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
> > >
> > > Is the system accessible to NCPs?
> >
> > Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha!! You're such a card, PPB!


I am being to believe 'it' is just a feminitwit troll

>
>

[Paul Fritz]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You keep talking as if the vast majority of NCPs wants to be able to
> walk
> > > away from their own children. What percentage are we talking about
> here,
> > in
> > > your opinion? 50%? 80% You seem to have a very, very low opinion of
> > > parents--like they are chomping at the bit to ditch their kids! If
> every
> > > driver of every car were dragged off to jail and forced to pay huge
> fines
> > > just in case they might get drunk and drive as a small percentage of
> > drivers
> > > do, there would be a massive outcry. Yet it seems to be ok with you
> that
> > > NCPs (fathers) are fined heavily just in case they might some day try
to
> > > ditch their kids, as a small percentage do. Why can't just the ones
who
> > > ditch their kids be treated like criminal scum? Why do you feel they
> all
> > > deserve it?
> >
> > Teacher! You don't listen/read very well do you. I have never said that
> the
> > majority want to walk away. I have never said the majority are the
> problem.
> > It does not take a majority to cause a system to be built in a state of
> > panic.
>
> Then why are the majority being treated as if they are guilty? WHY can't
> the system just deal with the guilty? You never answer that question!
>
> >
> > > > Some CPs take steps to try to make the situation NCP friendly by not
> > > asking
> > > > for support, realizing that the father's presence is important.They
> take
> > a
> > > > hit because they don't receive the support they deserve.
> > >
> > > What percentage?
> >
> > Does that matter? The system wasn't formed for the majority.It was
formed
> > based on the theory that the "deadbeat dad" problem was critical.
>
> That's right! It was formed to deal with deadbeats--and has expanded to
> deal with anyone who has the potential to be a deadbeat, whether they have
> ever demonstrated a propensity in that direction or not!
>
> >
> > > > The system must exist and it must be accessible to everyone, but the
> > > tactics
> > > > they use must be more mediative and based on resolution, not
> > persecution.
> > > > They need to be able to rationalize the levels of support and stop
> > trying
> > > to
> > > > compensate for the CPs who don't want to contribute to society
(work).
> > > > Judges need to be withdrawn from the bulk of the decisions and
brought
> > > > up-to-date on the impact of their decisions.
> > >
> > > Is the system accessible to NCPs?
> >
> > Opting in can be protection for the NCP if it's working correctly.
>
> Hahahahahahahahahaha!! You're such a card, PPB!


I am being to believe 'it' is just a feminitwit troll

>
>

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > > doubled after we had
> > > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> > feel
> > > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for
intact
> > > families? As far
> > > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
> to
> > > permitting an intact family to have more children.
> >
> > The CP having further children is not a CS issue.
>
> Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP
is
> also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
> child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty Mummy
is
> supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
> money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it is
> being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
> money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?
>
> It really has nothing to
> > do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
> that's
> > not a criminal code infraction is it.
>
> You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!
>
> >
> > As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the
system
> > can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
>
> Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
> settles it, huh?
===
He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type can't
comprehend being wrong about anything.
Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
==
>

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS was
> > > doubled after we had
> > > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the CP
> > > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do you
> > feel
> > > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for
intact
> > > families? As far
> > > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit prior
> to
> > > permitting an intact family to have more children.
> >
> > The CP having further children is not a CS issue.
>
> Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP
is
> also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
> child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty Mummy
is
> supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
> money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it is
> being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
> money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?
>
> It really has nothing to
> > do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
> that's
> > not a criminal code infraction is it.
>
> You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!
>
> >
> > As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the
system
> > can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
>
> Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
> settles it, huh?
===
He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type can't
comprehend being wrong about anything.
Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
==
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.
>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?
>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

If you are a man you are the first male ever to post here in a-c-s
commenting about a man being a "sperm donor." To my knowledge all of the
men here hate the term "sperm donor" because it marginalizes their role as a
father and positive influence in their children's lives.

[Bob Whiteside]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > Yes. His responsibility started when he delivered that package to the
> > > mother. Where's the confusion? Men not taking responsibility is half
the
> > > reason for the system. It's a nasty surpise but the judge is right.
How
> > much
> > > the mother receives may be a concern, but the aspect of law you were
> > arguing
> > > is cut-and-dry.
> >
> > Here that swooshing sound, that is the point going far over your head.
> The
> > susequent child have less rights than the first born according to the
> > judge.......need we point out the unconstitutional aspect of that?
>
> No sir that's a draft.
>
> The children have equal rights, the point is that in the case that was
> before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
determination
> of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
was
> bound to that.
>
> The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child at
> his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
may
> be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
>
> The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
suppose
> that can happen?
>
> > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but only
> she
> > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
extreme
> > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's a
> > > selectively good catholic.
> >
> > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> unconstitutional
>
> More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> constitutional issue.

If you are a man you are the first male ever to post here in a-c-s
commenting about a man being a "sperm donor." To my knowledge all of the
men here hate the term "sperm donor" because it marginalizes their role as a
father and positive influence in their children's lives.

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS
was
> > > > doubled after we had
> > > > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the
CP
> > > > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do
you
> > > feel
> > > > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for
> intact
> > > > families? As far
> > > > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit
prior
> > to
> > > > permitting an intact family to have more children.
> > >
> > > The CP having further children is not a CS issue.
> >
> > Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP
> is
> > also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
> > child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty
Mummy
> is
> > supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
> > money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it
is
> > being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
> > money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?
> >
> > It really has nothing to
> > > do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
> > that's
> > > not a criminal code infraction is it.
> >
> > You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!
> >
> > >
> > > As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the
> system
> > > can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
> >
> > Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
> > settles it, huh?
> ===
> He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
can't
> comprehend being wrong about anything.
> Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> ==

He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use for
PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not worth
listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far too
long!

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "gini52" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > You are simply uninformed on how the system works. My husband's CS
was
> > > > doubled after we had
> > > > two children (from $600. to 1200.). Further, how do you justify the
CP
> > > > having subsequent children when she clearly cannot afford them? Do
you
> > > feel
> > > > reproductive rights should be under the control of the state for
> intact
> > > > families? As far
> > > > as I know, there is no state that requires a financial affidavit
prior
> > to
> > > > permitting an intact family to have more children.
> > >
> > > The CP having further children is not a CS issue.
> >
> > Huh? WHY is it not a CS issue? You are aware, are you not, that the CP
> is
> > also under a court order to provide a certain amount of money for the
> > child's support. In my husband's case, he provides 85%, and Slutty
Mummy
> is
> > supposed to provide the other 15% Of course, she doesn't. She uses the
> > money to support herself and her whole household--not just the child it
is
> > being paid for. Don't you think she should be accruing arrears for the
> > money she is ordered to contribute, and is not contributing?
> >
> > It really has nothing to
> > > do with this. It does demonstrate a huge lack of responsibility, but
> > that's
> > > not a criminal code infraction is it.
> >
> > You really need to look into things MUCH more deeply!
> >
> > >
> > > As for your husband's circumstances. Oh well. How do you thing the
> system
> > > can be changed to make setting of support amounts more reasonable?
> >
> > Yeah, Gini. Tough s**t. Papa Polar Bear says "Oh, well." Guess that
> > settles it, huh?
> ===
> He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
can't
> comprehend being wrong about anything.
> Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> ==

He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use for
PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not worth
listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far too
long!

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> can't
> > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > ==
>
> He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use for
> PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not worth
> listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far too
> long!

Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..

I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
understanding anything. I do understand.

Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?

Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply walk
away?

The system is required but it needs more "heart" for the whole situation.
There are a significant number of NCPs out there that are willing to walk
away. The system (judges, enforcement agencies, lawmakers) need to realize
the real problems with the current system(s) and recognise those that do not
walk away. Protecting the relationships by restricting movement or
compensating for distance is the moves are not by the NCP. There's so much
to change, but elimination of the system is not realistic.

You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want that
it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people like
the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that walk
away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the kids
have nothing.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> can't
> > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > ==
>
> He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use for
> PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not worth
> listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far too
> long!

Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..

I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
understanding anything. I do understand.

Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?

Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply walk
away?

The system is required but it needs more "heart" for the whole situation.
There are a significant number of NCPs out there that are willing to walk
away. The system (judges, enforcement agencies, lawmakers) need to realize
the real problems with the current system(s) and recognise those that do not
walk away. Protecting the relationships by restricting movement or
compensating for distance is the moves are not by the NCP. There's so much
to change, but elimination of the system is not realistic.

You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want that
it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people like
the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that walk
away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the kids
have nothing.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> > unconstitutional
> >
> > More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> > contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> > constitutional issue.
>
> Men must pay--they "delivered the package." Women do not have to pay a
> penny--they can sit on their butts and wait for the judge to order daddy
to
> pay. You don't see the woman as having more rights?

If this woman dumped her child on the long-lost father he'd have a similar
expense and would be able to claim against her for CS. The equality is there
for that aspect of law.

If she had only one child the father would have the same responsibility. He
choice to work or not work should not affect the amount of CS. Somethings we
don't have control over. It's not a right, it's a loophole. It's not
morally/ethically right, but it's a fact of life. If her situation sinks to
poverty and the child is at risk he may have the child taken away. Yes, it's
an uphill battle but it's worth it.

You seem to forget I'm in the system. I'm not just looking in. I see my kids
living well and I'm happy for that. I see my financial sitiatuation getting
better but I also see a lack of any sort of savings for at least 5 years. I
hear my children asking for this and that and their mom is able to spend
time with them and lavish them while I'm on an extremely tight budget. The
courts and an application to vary my support order made things better even
though it cost me a fortune. The system was able to keep me unemployed and
penniless for two years and if it were not for support from legal-aid and
friends I'd still be stuck behind a completely unfair amount of CS.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > > So women have more rights than men......how quaint......and
> > unconstitutional
> >
> > More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> > contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> > constitutional issue.
>
> Men must pay--they "delivered the package." Women do not have to pay a
> penny--they can sit on their butts and wait for the judge to order daddy
to
> pay. You don't see the woman as having more rights?

If this woman dumped her child on the long-lost father he'd have a similar
expense and would be able to claim against her for CS. The equality is there
for that aspect of law.

If she had only one child the father would have the same responsibility. He
choice to work or not work should not affect the amount of CS. Somethings we
don't have control over. It's not a right, it's a loophole. It's not
morally/ethically right, but it's a fact of life. If her situation sinks to
poverty and the child is at risk he may have the child taken away. Yes, it's
an uphill battle but it's worth it.

You seem to forget I'm in the system. I'm not just looking in. I see my kids
living well and I'm happy for that. I see my financial sitiatuation getting
better but I also see a lack of any sort of savings for at least 5 years. I
hear my children asking for this and that and their mom is able to spend
time with them and lavish them while I'm on an extremely tight budget. The
courts and an application to vary my support order made things better even
though it cost me a fortune. The system was able to keep me unemployed and
penniless for two years and if it were not for support from legal-aid and
friends I'd still be stuck behind a completely unfair amount of CS.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > The children have equal rights,
>
> No they don't. The one who's momm makes it to the court house door the
> fastest is 'entitled' to a larger share of income than any susequent ones.

Yes, they have equal rights in the determination of parenthood. The father
has the responsibility to support each of his children. The amounts may be
poorly adjusted but that's part of the system that needs fixing. It does not
mean the system should not exist.

> > the point is that in the case that was
> > before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
> determination
> > of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
> was
> > bound to that.
>
> You are FOS

No. You're too blind to understand the responsibility the judge has.

> > The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child
at
> > his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
> may
> > be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
> >
> > The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> > out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
> suppose
> > that can happen?
>
> Whoosh......there goes the point far over your head once again.

You're into air noises aren't you. What is your point?

> > More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> > contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> > constitutional issue.
>
> FOS once again.........a woman can abort, abandon or adopt, none of those
> options are availible to the father against the wishes of the mother.

If the father is made aware of a child's existance within a safe timeframe,
one could argue that he should have the same right to initiate the
abortion/adoption that the mother has. If she declines these options the
father is not responsible for support. That would be a good change to the
laws. This would be a good thing to establish a precedent for.

> BTW......conceiving does not equal gestation and birth.

No, it doesn't but if birth occurs then the responsibilty exists. The father
is at that point responsible for support.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
...

> > The children have equal rights,
>
> No they don't. The one who's momm makes it to the court house door the
> fastest is 'entitled' to a larger share of income than any susequent ones.

Yes, they have equal rights in the determination of parenthood. The father
has the responsibility to support each of his children. The amounts may be
poorly adjusted but that's part of the system that needs fixing. It does not
mean the system should not exist.

> > the point is that in the case that was
> > before the judge he cannot consider the other children in the
> determination
> > of teh responsibility of support. From a strictly legal point of view he
> was
> > bound to that.
>
> You are FOS

No. You're too blind to understand the responsibility the judge has.

> > The guidelines set out by the state may prescribe an amount for 1 child
at
> > his pay-scale. He is also bound to a large extent by that. These values
> may
> > be "wrong" but those are his bounds.
> >
> > The system must change to ensure the amounts are not necessarily an
> > out-dated guideline, but rather a fair and reasonable amount. How do
> suppose
> > that can happen?
>
> Whoosh......there goes the point far over your head once again.

You're into air noises aren't you. What is your point?

> > More rights? She chooses to get pregnant, someone made the choice to
> > contribute sperm. Unconstitutional? Who are you kidding? This is not a
> > constitutional issue.
>
> FOS once again.........a woman can abort, abandon or adopt, none of those
> options are availible to the father against the wishes of the mother.

If the father is made aware of a child's existance within a safe timeframe,
one could argue that he should have the same right to initiate the
abortion/adoption that the mother has. If she declines these options the
father is not responsible for support. That would be a good change to the
laws. This would be a good thing to establish a precedent for.

> BTW......conceiving does not equal gestation and birth.

No, it doesn't but if birth occurs then the responsibilty exists. The father
is at that point responsible for support.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,
>
> You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?

Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat... but
in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
disprove the fathers responsibility.

> simply
> > irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a
responsibility.
>
> Children who exist and draw breath are IRRELEVANT? IRRELEVANT!! You are
a
> crude, crude man!

No. Not crude, realistic. You don't understand law. In a court you argue
facts and work with information that is relevant to the case. The other
children are not relevant to the case.

> > My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support
and
> > the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness.
>
> Fairness--but not to the irrelevant children of this world.

Yes, fairness. Like two aspects the the judgement. Yes he's the father so
he's responsible for some level of CS, but since he has this income and
these other responsibilities the guideline amount will be adjusted to
accomodate his circumstances. That's where the system should be fair.

> Perhaps your
> > husband shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
> > should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a
change,
> > but he's still responsible.
>
> And would you care to point out to me where I said he isn't responsible
for
> the child? Go ahead--do a long and thorough search. You will NEVER find
> such a statement. But you will find that I have many times stated that we
> both want the child to receive necessary support.

Right. I didn't acuse him of not wanting to be responsible but this system
is not about him. It's about NCPs and *some* of them not taking
responsibility.

> And what about Slutty Mummy who has brought into this world many children
> thatshe can't support? Where does her responsibility kick in? Or does
it?
> Since working would interrupt her drinking.

What about it? How do you suppose the system force her back to work or force
her to stop having children?

> > > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but
only
> > she
> > > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
> extreme
> > > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's
a
> > > > selectively good catholic.
> > >
> > > Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
> > child,
> > > but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> > > Interesting......
> >
> > You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible
> at
> > all, but the system doesn't have control over that.
>
> The system YOU so clearly support most certainly DOES have control over
it!
> Have you not read about the MEN who have been ordered to have no more
> children because they are not paying for the children they DO have? You
> need to do quite a bit more research before you declare the system to be
> powerless in this area. The system simply does not choose to exert the
same
> control over women as it does over men.

You're confusing law with sex-ed.

Are those men forced to have a permanent and surgical procedure? If so, then
yes the law should consider this option.

I don't know everything but I do know the system is flawed. I don't support
the current system, I support A system.

You have brought nothing to the table that actually serves as progressive
change. No. Elimination is not a practical option.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> > At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,
>
> You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?

Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat... but
in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
disprove the fathers responsibility.

> simply
> > irrelevant to the fact that this child has a father with a
responsibility.
>
> Children who exist and draw breath are IRRELEVANT? IRRELEVANT!! You are
a
> crude, crude man!

No. Not crude, realistic. You don't understand law. In a court you argue
facts and work with information that is relevant to the case. The other
children are not relevant to the case.

> > My concerns with the system centre around the fairness of the support
and
> > the means used to collect it. There needs to be more fairness.
>
> Fairness--but not to the irrelevant children of this world.

Yes, fairness. Like two aspects the the judgement. Yes he's the father so
he's responsible for some level of CS, but since he has this income and
these other responsibilities the guideline amount will be adjusted to
accomodate his circumstances. That's where the system should be fair.

> Perhaps your
> > husband shouldn't pay as much, maybe his other responsibilities
> > should lower the amount he pays to his older child's mom. That's a
change,
> > but he's still responsible.
>
> And would you care to point out to me where I said he isn't responsible
for
> the child? Go ahead--do a long and thorough search. You will NEVER find
> such a statement. But you will find that I have many times stated that we
> both want the child to receive necessary support.

Right. I didn't acuse him of not wanting to be responsible but this system
is not about him. It's about NCPs and *some* of them not taking
responsibility.

> And what about Slutty Mummy who has brought into this world many children
> thatshe can't support? Where does her responsibility kick in? Or does
it?
> Since working would interrupt her drinking.

What about it? How do you suppose the system force her back to work or force
her to stop having children?

> > > > This is an entirely different discussion. I think it's unwise but
only
> > she
> > > > has control over this, sterilization is not an option except in
> extreme
> > > > cases. There's no evidence that she's a bad mother, only that she's
a
> > > > selectively good catholic.
> > >
> > > Ah--hypocrisy at its finest? It's ok for mom to bang out child after
> > child,
> > > but only the fathers will be saddled with financial responsibility.
> > > Interesting......
> >
> > You're blinded, that's clear. It's not ok, morally. It's not responsible
> at
> > all, but the system doesn't have control over that.
>
> The system YOU so clearly support most certainly DOES have control over
it!
> Have you not read about the MEN who have been ordered to have no more
> children because they are not paying for the children they DO have? You
> need to do quite a bit more research before you declare the system to be
> powerless in this area. The system simply does not choose to exert the
same
> control over women as it does over men.

You're confusing law with sex-ed.

Are those men forced to have a permanent and surgical procedure? If so, then
yes the law should consider this option.

I don't know everything but I do know the system is flawed. I don't support
the current system, I support A system.

You have brought nothing to the table that actually serves as progressive
change. No. Elimination is not a practical option.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> If you are a man you are the first male ever to post here in a-c-s
> commenting about a man being a "sperm donor." To my knowledge all of the
> men here hate the term "sperm donor" because it marginalizes their role as
a
> father and positive influence in their children's lives.

Hi Bob,

The term is appropriate for those men that are just that. In this case the
one-night-stand turned parenthood he was and is a "sperm donor." Being a
father would imply involvement in the child's life. I don't presume that the
majority of NCPs are such people. I do see a few that distance themselves
after the relationship with the mother ends and this is also wrong.

CS should not be biased by access if the lack of access is the NCPs choice.
I do not consider a long-distance move to necessarily be choice, but could
be necessity. If the CP moves from the NCP support should accomodate
reasonable transportation fees. Guidelines should be flexible and imputed
incomes should have a burden of proof behind them.

And yes, I am a man.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
ink.net...

> If you are a man you are the first male ever to post here in a-c-s
> commenting about a man being a "sperm donor." To my knowledge all of the
> men here hate the term "sperm donor" because it marginalizes their role as
a
> father and positive influence in their children's lives.

Hi Bob,

The term is appropriate for those men that are just that. In this case the
one-night-stand turned parenthood he was and is a "sperm donor." Being a
father would imply involvement in the child's life. I don't presume that the
majority of NCPs are such people. I do see a few that distance themselves
after the relationship with the mother ends and this is also wrong.

CS should not be biased by access if the lack of access is the NCPs choice.
I do not consider a long-distance move to necessarily be choice, but could
be necessity. If the CP moves from the NCP support should accomodate
reasonable transportation fees. Guidelines should be flexible and imputed
incomes should have a burden of proof behind them.

And yes, I am a man.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,
> >
> > You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?
>
> Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat...
but
> in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
> disprove the fathers responsibility.
==
That's about the stupidest statement you've made to date and it doesn't even
warrant
further response. You don't think anything through do you?
==
==

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > At no time did I or the judge suggest his children are worth squat,
> >
> > You were there? You heard what the judge said? Which one were you?
>
> Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat...
but
> in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
> disprove the fathers responsibility.
==
That's about the stupidest statement you've made to date and it doesn't even
warrant
further response. You don't think anything through do you?
==
==

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> > can't
> > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > ==
> >
> > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
for
> > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
worth
> > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
too
> > long!
>
> Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..
>
> I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
> the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
> system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
> up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
> understanding anything. I do understand.
>
> Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?
>
> Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply
walk
> away?
>
> The system is required but it needs more "heart" for the whole situation.
> There are a significant number of NCPs out there that are willing to walk
> away. The system (judges, enforcement agencies, lawmakers) need to realize
> the real problems with the current system(s) and recognise those that do
not
> walk away. Protecting the relationships by restricting movement or
> compensating for distance is the moves are not by the NCP. There's so much
> to change, but elimination of the system is not realistic.
>
> You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want
that
> it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
> regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people
like
> the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that
walk
> away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the kids
> have nothing.

I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY can
the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
question?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> > can't
> > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > ==
> >
> > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
for
> > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
worth
> > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
too
> > long!
>
> Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..
>
> I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
> the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
> system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
> up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
> understanding anything. I do understand.
>
> Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?
>
> Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply
walk
> away?
>
> The system is required but it needs more "heart" for the whole situation.
> There are a significant number of NCPs out there that are willing to walk
> away. The system (judges, enforcement agencies, lawmakers) need to realize
> the real problems with the current system(s) and recognise those that do
not
> walk away. Protecting the relationships by restricting movement or
> compensating for distance is the moves are not by the NCP. There's so much
> to change, but elimination of the system is not realistic.
>
> You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want
that
> it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
> regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people
like
> the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that
walk
> away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the kids
> have nothing.

I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY can
the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
question?

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This
type
> > > can't
> > > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
> for
> > > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
> worth
> > > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
> too
> > > long!
.................................................. ..
> > You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want
> that
> > it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
> > regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people
> like
> > the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that
> walk
> > away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the
kids
> > have nothing.
>
> I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid.
==
Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
regardless what you say.
He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."
==

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This
type
> > > can't
> > > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > > ==
> > >
> > > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
> for
> > > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
> worth
> > > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
> too
> > > long!
.................................................. ..
> > You just keep hiding your head in the sand. Scream as loud as you want
> that
> > it's not fair and maintain your black and white views of right and wrong
> > regarding the system. There's a need and it's partly because of people
> like
> > the CP that has 4 children by 4 fathers and partly because of NCPs that
> walk
> > away or fight support to the point that the lawyers are rich and the
kids
> > have nothing.
>
> I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid.
==
Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
regardless what you say.
He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."
==

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> > can't
> > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > ==
> >
> > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
for
> > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
worth
> > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
too
> > long!
>
> Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..
>
> I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
> the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
> system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
> up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
> understanding anything. I do understand.
>
> Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?
>
> Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply
walk
> away?
===
These questions have been answered ad nauseum in this thread.
See TM, he's arguing for self-entertainment. He has nothing of substance to
contribute.
===
===

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > > He just doesn't get it and won't no matter what anyone says. This type
> > can't
> > > comprehend being wrong about anything.
> > > Sounds so Clark-esque, doesn't he? BTW, where is Clark? These guys
> > > just seem to come out of the woodwork sometimes.
> > > ==
> >
> > He did kind of disappear into thin air, didn't he? I have no more use
for
> > PPB, either. Anybody who thinks that any child is irrelevant is not
worth
> > listening to. Must've kept his head where the sun don't shine for far
too
> > long!
>
> Clarke and I would probably have a good laugh at you teacher, gini..
>
> I have said all along that the system needs changing to better accomodate
> the financial circumstances. You seem to think that because I feel the
> system needs to exist and that the reasons include the NCP parent stepping
> up to the plate to provide support even when they don't want to I'm not
> understanding anything. I do understand.
>
> Do you feel a father is responsible for paying support, at some level?
>
> Do you feel that the system should protect the CP from NCPs that simply
walk
> away?
===
These questions have been answered ad nauseum in this thread.
See TM, he's arguing for self-entertainment. He has nothing of substance to
contribute.
===
===

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat...
> but
> > in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
> > disprove the fathers responsibility.
> ==
> That's about the stupidest statement you've made to date and it doesn't
even
> warrant
> further response. You don't think anything through do you?

I'm true sorry for you gini. You seem blind to the legalities involved. Hi
is the father and has responsibility so the fact that he has children does
not change that fact.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
> > Sorry, I mis-spoke... A judge may have said that they are worth squat...
> but
> > in regards to the case they are not relevant. They do not establish or
> > disprove the fathers responsibility.
> ==
> That's about the stupidest statement you've made to date and it doesn't
even
> warrant
> further response. You don't think anything through do you?

I'm true sorry for you gini. You seem blind to the legalities involved. Hi
is the father and has responsibility so the fact that he has children does
not change that fact.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY can
> the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
> responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
> willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
> question?

I am nowhere near stupid though I've wondered the same of you from time to
time but have given you credit for the knowledge you have yet to reveal.

If the system can be turned off for those people who have an agreement and
are getting along in child access and financial areas then it is for just
those people who need it. Our local system is like this and I support this
aspect of the system. The problem is that many CPs have the right to call in
the system when they feel the slightest bit cheated. They may even be
completely up-to-date with the NCP and just have an issue with him (like his
new girlfriend).

I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
everyone.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY can
> the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
> responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
> willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
> question?

I am nowhere near stupid though I've wondered the same of you from time to
time but have given you credit for the knowledge you have yet to reveal.

If the system can be turned off for those people who have an agreement and
are getting along in child access and financial areas then it is for just
those people who need it. Our local system is like this and I support this
aspect of the system. The problem is that many CPs have the right to call in
the system when they feel the slightest bit cheated. They may even be
completely up-to-date with the NCP and just have an issue with him (like his
new girlfriend).

I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
everyone.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
> regardless what you say.
> He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."

Well if you can't understand the basics I'll keep drilling them into you.
I'm not stupid, ignorant, or a feminist. I'm a father who's been through the
system and sincerely want to see change that benefits everyone through
rights, protections, and fairness.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
> regardless what you say.
> He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."

Well if you can't understand the basics I'll keep drilling them into you.
I'm not stupid, ignorant, or a feminist. I'm a father who's been through the
system and sincerely want to see change that benefits everyone through
rights, protections, and fairness.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
> their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
> propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
> sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
> anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
> from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
> everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)

Ok, not every, but some women feel trapped and need support to get out of a
bad situation. These women or people that support these women may be special
interest groups that have lobbied for these protections but the problem does
exist.

I feel there must be a few men that face this too. There are numerous
reasons for the end of the relationship, including the arrival of children.
This may be wrong in some sense but it's the why.
>
> In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
> there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
> words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
> indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
> And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
> when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
> one-sided commitment?

What restraints are there now? You need to wait a year unless you have proof
of adultery or the like. The restraints on marriage should be moral, not
legal or threatening. It took me 5 years to find my way out of my marriage.
It was anything but easy.

Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children fairly.

> Most certainly, I agree with you that it is necessary to educate people
> -- particularly young men -- about the realities of marriage. I
> strongly suspect that, if young men knew about the realities, they would
> be far less willing to enter into marriage at all. A male boycott of
> marriage might be the first step towards reform, just as boycotts of
> businesses that supported segregation led to the reform of the Jim Crow
> laws in the South.

I, personally, will be educating my daughters about those evil young men,
and the need to love themselves before finding that person they want to
spend their lives with. I have high, and possibly unreasonable, hopes that
they will learn from my mistakes.

> More generally, however, I think the correct lesson to draw from the
> present mess is that government intervention -- specially in intimate
> personal matters such as individual marriages -- nearly always is a
> recipe for disaster. You just don't want to put such matters into the
> hands of politicians or bureaucrats. What they do is try to enlarge
> their own power by pandering to special interest groups (notably, in
> this context, the feminists). The best thing would be to privatize the
> whole thing. Let couples make their own arrangements for marriage and
> divorce.

The government is always called upon to solve social problems then blamed
for the side-effects. They are not blameless but there's a place for
government in providing protection of rights. Privatization is a possible
solution.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"Kenneth S." > wrote in message
...
> I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
> their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
> propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
> sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
> anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
> from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
> everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)

Ok, not every, but some women feel trapped and need support to get out of a
bad situation. These women or people that support these women may be special
interest groups that have lobbied for these protections but the problem does
exist.

I feel there must be a few men that face this too. There are numerous
reasons for the end of the relationship, including the arrival of children.
This may be wrong in some sense but it's the why.
>
> In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
> there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
> words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
> indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
> And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
> when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
> one-sided commitment?

What restraints are there now? You need to wait a year unless you have proof
of adultery or the like. The restraints on marriage should be moral, not
legal or threatening. It took me 5 years to find my way out of my marriage.
It was anything but easy.

Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children fairly.

> Most certainly, I agree with you that it is necessary to educate people
> -- particularly young men -- about the realities of marriage. I
> strongly suspect that, if young men knew about the realities, they would
> be far less willing to enter into marriage at all. A male boycott of
> marriage might be the first step towards reform, just as boycotts of
> businesses that supported segregation led to the reform of the Jim Crow
> laws in the South.

I, personally, will be educating my daughters about those evil young men,
and the need to love themselves before finding that person they want to
spend their lives with. I have high, and possibly unreasonable, hopes that
they will learn from my mistakes.

> More generally, however, I think the correct lesson to draw from the
> present mess is that government intervention -- specially in intimate
> personal matters such as individual marriages -- nearly always is a
> recipe for disaster. You just don't want to put such matters into the
> hands of politicians or bureaucrats. What they do is try to enlarge
> their own power by pandering to special interest groups (notably, in
> this context, the feminists). The best thing would be to privatize the
> whole thing. Let couples make their own arrangements for marriage and
> divorce.

The government is always called upon to solve social problems then blamed
for the side-effects. They are not blameless but there's a place for
government in providing protection of rights. Privatization is a possible
solution.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
> > regardless what you say.
> > He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."
>
> Well if you can't understand the basics I'll keep drilling them into you.
==
I'll be awaiting your pearls of wisdom. In the meantime,
your degree that qualifies you to engage in said "drilling" is in what?
==
> I'm not stupid, ignorant, or a feminist.
==
That is *your* perception. We simply disagree on this
point.
==
>I'm a father who's been through the
> system and sincerely want to see change that benefits everyone through
> rights, protections, and fairness.
==
All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have significantly
more experience
dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made indicates
that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers face
in family court. In fact,
you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
anything even remotely useful.
With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she wishes
to continue to engage your
repetitive nonsense.
==
==



>
> Papa
>
>

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Bingo! All he is doing is repeating the same statements over and over
> > regardless what you say.
> > He changes a few words around and then hits "Send."
>
> Well if you can't understand the basics I'll keep drilling them into you.
==
I'll be awaiting your pearls of wisdom. In the meantime,
your degree that qualifies you to engage in said "drilling" is in what?
==
> I'm not stupid, ignorant, or a feminist.
==
That is *your* perception. We simply disagree on this
point.
==
>I'm a father who's been through the
> system and sincerely want to see change that benefits everyone through
> rights, protections, and fairness.
==
All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have significantly
more experience
dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made indicates
that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers face
in family court. In fact,
you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
anything even remotely useful.
With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she wishes
to continue to engage your
repetitive nonsense.
==
==



>
> Papa
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have significantly
> more experience
> dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made
indicates
> that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers
face
> in family court. In fact,
> you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
> anything even remotely useful.
> With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she
wishes
> to continue to engage your
> repetitive nonsense.

You know, you may have more history with the system but you seem to argue
that the systems is wrong yet suggest no REAL solutions to it. You have
biased and blurred views of what right is, even to the point of
contradiction.

You feel I'm in error.. fine. I don't have the same opinions as you and I
really think you're past thinking but rant like a banshee about how the NCP
is downtrodden. You refuse to see the need for the system for those who are
in need of it. Legitimately. You resort to name calling, a common tactic of
someone who cannot collect ideas into a problem and present a solution. You
are not part of the solution.

The futility is the people who are in the system screaming about it and not
demanding formal change.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have significantly
> more experience
> dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made
indicates
> that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers
face
> in family court. In fact,
> you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
> anything even remotely useful.
> With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she
wishes
> to continue to engage your
> repetitive nonsense.

You know, you may have more history with the system but you seem to argue
that the systems is wrong yet suggest no REAL solutions to it. You have
biased and blurred views of what right is, even to the point of
contradiction.

You feel I'm in error.. fine. I don't have the same opinions as you and I
really think you're past thinking but rant like a banshee about how the NCP
is downtrodden. You refuse to see the need for the system for those who are
in need of it. Legitimately. You resort to name calling, a common tactic of
someone who cannot collect ideas into a problem and present a solution. You
are not part of the solution.

The futility is the people who are in the system screaming about it and not
demanding formal change.

Papa

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY
can
> > the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
> > responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
> > willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
> > question?
>
> I am nowhere near stupid though I've wondered the same of you from time to
> time but have given you credit for the knowledge you have yet to reveal.
>
> If the system can be turned off for those people who have an agreement and
> are getting along in child access and financial areas then it is for just
> those people who need it. Our local system is like this and I support this
> aspect of the system. The problem is that many CPs have the right to call
in
> the system when they feel the slightest bit cheated. They may even be
> completely up-to-date with the NCP and just have an issue with him (like
his
> new girlfriend).
>
> I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
> everyone.

You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's faces
in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP is
some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a friendly
system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial obligations--as if
they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.

You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars who
has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly and
adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What you
fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of the
crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as you
have done is offensive in its puerility.

As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2 children,
did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the fact
that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE should
be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather that
your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even though
you consider them to be irrelevant?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I am really beginning to believe that you are just plain stupid. WHY
can
> > the system not just be in place for those who do NOT accept their
> > responsibilities? WHY does it have to torment those who are perfectly
> > willing to step up to the plate? WHEN are yuou going to respond to this
> > question?
>
> I am nowhere near stupid though I've wondered the same of you from time to
> time but have given you credit for the knowledge you have yet to reveal.
>
> If the system can be turned off for those people who have an agreement and
> are getting along in child access and financial areas then it is for just
> those people who need it. Our local system is like this and I support this
> aspect of the system. The problem is that many CPs have the right to call
in
> the system when they feel the slightest bit cheated. They may even be
> completely up-to-date with the NCP and just have an issue with him (like
his
> new girlfriend).
>
> I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
> everyone.

You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's faces
in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP is
some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a friendly
system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial obligations--as if
they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.

You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars who
has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly and
adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What you
fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of the
crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as you
have done is offensive in its puerility.

As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2 children,
did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the fact
that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE should
be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather that
your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even though
you consider them to be irrelevant?

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
> > their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
> > propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
> > sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
> > anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
> > from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
> > everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)
>
> Ok, not every, but some women feel trapped and need support to get out of
a
> bad situation. These women or people that support these women may be
special
> interest groups that have lobbied for these protections but the problem
does
> exist.
>
> I feel there must be a few men that face this too. There are numerous
> reasons for the end of the relationship, including the arrival of
children.
> This may be wrong in some sense but it's the why.
> >
> > In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
> > there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
> > words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
> > indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
> > And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
> > when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
> > one-sided commitment?
>
> What restraints are there now? You need to wait a year unless you have
proof
> of adultery or the like. The restraints on marriage should be moral, not
> legal or threatening. It took me 5 years to find my way out of my
marriage.
> It was anything but easy.
>
> Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
> Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
fairly.

Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you are
irrelevant!"

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Kenneth S." > wrote in message
> ...
> > I find your comments about the need to allow women to "escape" from
> > their marriages very puzzling, Papa. This is the pure feminist
> > propaganda line, and you seem to have swallowed it, hook, line, and
> > sinker. Assuming you ARE a man, it's odd to find you embracing such an
> > anti-male line. (And women in the U.S. today don't generally "escape"
> > from their marriages. What they do is expel their husbands from
> > everything but the financial responsibilities for their families.)
>
> Ok, not every, but some women feel trapped and need support to get out of
a
> bad situation. These women or people that support these women may be
special
> interest groups that have lobbied for these protections but the problem
does
> exist.
>
> I feel there must be a few men that face this too. There are numerous
> reasons for the end of the relationship, including the arrival of
children.
> This may be wrong in some sense but it's the why.
> >
> > In the first place, where your approach leads is to the notion that
> > there should be no restraints on wife-initiated divorce. In other
> > words, to the destruction of marriage as an institution -- which IS
> > indeed what we have in the U.S. today. But is it what we SHOULD have?
> > And, when the generality of men understand that this is what faces them
> > when they get married, will they be willing to enter into such a
> > one-sided commitment?
>
> What restraints are there now? You need to wait a year unless you have
proof
> of adultery or the like. The restraints on marriage should be moral, not
> legal or threatening. It took me 5 years to find my way out of my
marriage.
> It was anything but easy.
>
> Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
> Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
fairly.

Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you are
irrelevant!"

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
> > everyone.
>
> You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's faces
> in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP is
> some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a
friendly
> system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial obligations--as
if
> they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.

You really have a reading comprehension problem.

I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to exist.
I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
indicates you can't comprehend english.

> You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars who
> has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly
and
> adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What
you
> fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of
the
> crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
> been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
> many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as
you
> have done is offensive in its puerility.

When the soldier gets wounded doesn't matter. It's wether he gets back up
and fights for peace or continues with war blind and thoughtless. As for how
long these people have lived with the problems, am I supposed to feel sorry
for you or display some sort of respect? I haven't seen any reason to
respect you here.

> As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2 children,
> did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
fact
> that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE should
> be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather that
> your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
though
> you consider them to be irrelevant?

I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are confused
about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea that
this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and the
long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.

The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your mind,
but her actions do not excuse his responsibility. You look to punish her...
Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the situation
would be better if he took custody?

You posted your situation, I took it as an example. It's was not a personal
attack and your choice to make it one was YOUR CHOICE. You may be older,
wiser, and/or more experienced. You do not necessarily have a clear mind and
the ability to rationally discuss this topic with a legal perspective.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply to
> > everyone.
>
> You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's faces
> in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP is
> some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a
friendly
> system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial obligations--as
if
> they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.

You really have a reading comprehension problem.

I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to exist.
I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
indicates you can't comprehend english.

> You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars who
> has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly
and
> adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What
you
> fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of
the
> crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
> been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
> many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as
you
> have done is offensive in its puerility.

When the soldier gets wounded doesn't matter. It's wether he gets back up
and fights for peace or continues with war blind and thoughtless. As for how
long these people have lived with the problems, am I supposed to feel sorry
for you or display some sort of respect? I haven't seen any reason to
respect you here.

> As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2 children,
> did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
fact
> that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE should
> be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather that
> your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
though
> you consider them to be irrelevant?

I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are confused
about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea that
this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and the
long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.

The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your mind,
but her actions do not excuse his responsibility. You look to punish her...
Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the situation
would be better if he took custody?

You posted your situation, I took it as an example. It's was not a personal
attack and your choice to make it one was YOUR CHOICE. You may be older,
wiser, and/or more experienced. You do not necessarily have a clear mind and
the ability to rationally discuss this topic with a legal perspective.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
> > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> fairly.
>
> Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you
are
> irrelevant!"

Try these on:

Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to her
place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was only
in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old girl's
mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a kid
of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand... it
came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...

Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch these 13
years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable to
support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed and
we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the local
guidelines.

Bob pays and gains a daughter.

What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another newsgroup.
> > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> fairly.
>
> Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you
are
> irrelevant!"

Try these on:

Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to her
place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was only
in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old girl's
mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a kid
of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand... it
came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...

Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch these 13
years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable to
support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed and
we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the local
guidelines.

Bob pays and gains a daughter.

What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.

Papa

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply
to
> > > everyone.
> >
> > You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's
faces
> > in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP
is
> > some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a
> friendly
> > system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial
obligations--as
> if
> > they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.
>
> You really have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
exist.
> I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> indicates you can't comprehend english.

It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt out
here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a judge.
Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting out
is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY disagree
that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!

>
> > You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars
who
> > has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly
> and
> > adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What
> you
> > fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of
> the
> > crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
> > been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
> > many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as
> you
> > have done is offensive in its puerility.
>
> When the soldier gets wounded doesn't matter. It's wether he gets back up
> and fights for peace or continues with war blind and thoughtless. As for
how
> long these people have lived with the problems, am I supposed to feel
sorry
> for you or display some sort of respect? I haven't seen any reason to
> respect you here.

What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced, and
why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of the
system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of the
system.

>
> > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
children,
> > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
> fact
> > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
should
> > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
that
> > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
> though
> > you consider them to be irrelevant?
>
> I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
confused
> about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea that
> this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and
the
> long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.

You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my husband,
and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been misused
by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the system
can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting any
of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking at
her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that way
more CS money flows through their greedy hands.

And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has NOT
become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers our
children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because of
our children.

>
> The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
mind,
> but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.

Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You throw
this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.

You look to punish her...
> Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the situation
> would be better if he took custody?

And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you seethem
as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be helpd
responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single parent?
Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money SHE
ALONE chose to withhold from her child?

>
> You posted your situation, I took it as an example. It's was not a
personal
> attack and your choice to make it one was YOUR CHOICE. You may be older,
> wiser, and/or more experienced. You do not necessarily have a clear mind
and
> the ability to rationally discuss this topic with a legal perspective.

Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on this
forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt me!
So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages, but
gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I am saying the system needs to exist I have never said it must apply
to
> > > everyone.
> >
> > You are continually saying that the system needs to grind everyone's
faces
> > in the mud equally. I do not agree with you. You also say that the CP
is
> > some sort of sacred goddess who must have her every whim heard by a
> friendly
> > system judge. You have yet to mention the CP's financial
obligations--as
> if
> > they don't have any. THEY DO--but the system does not enforce them.
>
> You really have a reading comprehension problem.
>
> I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
exist.
> I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> indicates you can't comprehend english.

It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt out
here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a judge.
Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting out
is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY disagree
that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!

>
> > You act as if you are a brave wounded hero from the child support wars
who
> > has paid his dues by enduring near poverty--and all of us should meekly
> and
> > adoringly look up to your example and trudge on, as you have done. What
> you
> > fail to realize is that you have not endured even a small percentage of
> the
> > crap that many people here have lived with for much longer than you have
> > been paying child support. Believe it or not, your seeming ignorance of
> > many aspects of the system and your insistence that everyone cow tow as
> you
> > have done is offensive in its puerility.
>
> When the soldier gets wounded doesn't matter. It's wether he gets back up
> and fights for peace or continues with war blind and thoughtless. As for
how
> long these people have lived with the problems, am I supposed to feel
sorry
> for you or display some sort of respect? I haven't seen any reason to
> respect you here.

What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced, and
why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of the
system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of the
system.

>
> > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
children,
> > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
> fact
> > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
should
> > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
that
> > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
> though
> > you consider them to be irrelevant?
>
> I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
confused
> about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea that
> this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and
the
> long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.

You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my husband,
and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been misused
by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the system
can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting any
of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking at
her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that way
more CS money flows through their greedy hands.

And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has NOT
become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers our
children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because of
our children.

>
> The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
mind,
> but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.

Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You throw
this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.

You look to punish her...
> Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the situation
> would be better if he took custody?

And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you seethem
as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be helpd
responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single parent?
Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money SHE
ALONE chose to withhold from her child?

>
> You posted your situation, I took it as an example. It's was not a
personal
> attack and your choice to make it one was YOUR CHOICE. You may be older,
> wiser, and/or more experienced. You do not necessarily have a clear mind
and
> the ability to rationally discuss this topic with a legal perspective.

Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on this
forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt me!
So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages, but
gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
newsgroup.
> > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> > fairly.
> >
> > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you
> are
> > irrelevant!"
>
> Try these on:
>
> Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to
her
> place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was only
> in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old girl's
> mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a
kid
> of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand...
it
> came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
>
> Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch these
13
> years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable to
> support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed and
> we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
local
> guidelines.
>
> Bob pays and gains a daughter.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
> that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.

What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation will
solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause you
problems!!!!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
newsgroup.
> > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> > fairly.
> >
> > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of you
> are
> > irrelevant!"
>
> Try these on:
>
> Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to
her
> place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was only
> in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old girl's
> mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a
kid
> of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand...
it
> came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
>
> Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch these
13
> years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable to
> support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed and
> we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
local
> guidelines.
>
> Bob pays and gains a daughter.
>
> What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
> that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.

What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation will
solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause you
problems!!!!

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
> exist.
> > I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> > indicates you can't comprehend english.
>
> It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt
out
> here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a
judge.
> Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting out
> is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY
disagree
> that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
> their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!

Yes, it's possible here, so there's an opportunity to change the system
where you are in the same manner if the lobbyists can show the benefits to
the lawmakers where you are.

> What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced, and
> why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of the
> system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
> brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of
the
> system.

I have listened and read and I understand completely. I do not brush off
tough questions I disregard the ramblings of idiots.

> > > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
> children,
> > > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
> > fact
> > > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
> should
> > > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
> that
> > > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
> > though
> > > you consider them to be irrelevant?
> >
> > I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
> confused
> > about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> > situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea
that
> > this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and
> the
> > long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.
>
> You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my husband,
> and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been misused
> by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the
system
> can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
> about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting
any
> of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking
at
> her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that way
> more CS money flows through their greedy hands.

You are part of the system, involved in it, but it is not SOLELY about YOU.
These services are a cost to government, they don't want MORE people in it.
(this is one of those things I'll disregard because it's a rambling). If the
system has been misused against you, work together to find rational
solutions, bring them to a special interest group and help them bring them
to the lawmakers. Change the laws.

> And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has
NOT
> become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
> support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers our
> children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because
of
> our children.

I never made such an assumption. I said "I hope your family lives through
this and the long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too." I
never suggested the quarrel is with this child, but you insist on spinning
it to the poor-me angle. I have never said your children are irrelevant in
the context of life and your family, only to the determination of paternity.

> > The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
> mind,
> > but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.
>
> Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You throw
> this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.
>
> You look to punish her...
> > Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the
situation
> > would be better if he took custody?
>
> And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you seethem
> as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be helpd
> responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single
parent?
> Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
> deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money
SHE
> ALONE chose to withhold from her child?

I don't know how does it benefit your children? Your husband shouldn't be
held responsible if the mother wasn't pursuing his whereabouts, but that's
not the system we have now and that's how it should change. The system
SHOULD have provisions to protect fathers who unwittingly became fathers.
So... make the case and change the laws. As for how she spend her money,
that's another change, but how do you control or monitor it without making
the system larger.

Your husband is part of the system because he is presumed to be a "deadbeat
dad." This guilty until proven innocent and judge before mediation system is
very offensive in this area. My point I'm trying to make is please try to
find a way to be a productive voice of change, not a screeming banshee that
cannot see any point of view in this but your own.

> Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
> children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on this
> forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt me!
> So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages,
but
> gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!

Apparently you, a respresentive of an NCP (your husband), cannot see the
other purposes and reasonings for the existence of the system. The system,
at least here, is like a machine. It does not care who you are, what you do,
or how you make your living. The tactics used are not personal and frankly
may be counter-productive. Personally I advise anyone involved with the
system here to ensure they are paid up and have arrears repayment options on
the table if not in place. Why because failing to do so will be worse, the
machine will move to its next tactic and the battle gets uglier. You take
the actions of the system personally, that's the worst thing and it's wrong.

This is why I have said the system needs more heart, some implicit voice of
reason and a more appropriate mandate. They seem to have the mandate of
"squeeze all NCPs, regardless of means until they comply or are dead" they
need a mandate like "help determine appropriate support levels between CP
and NCP based on financial means and obligations."

Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization, abortion,
adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually idiots
or not, never draws the right sort of attention.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
> > I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
> exist.
> > I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> > indicates you can't comprehend english.
>
> It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt
out
> here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a
judge.
> Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting out
> is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY
disagree
> that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
> their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!

Yes, it's possible here, so there's an opportunity to change the system
where you are in the same manner if the lobbyists can show the benefits to
the lawmakers where you are.

> What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced, and
> why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of the
> system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
> brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of
the
> system.

I have listened and read and I understand completely. I do not brush off
tough questions I disregard the ramblings of idiots.

> > > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
> children,
> > > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for the
> > fact
> > > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
> should
> > > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
> that
> > > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the consequences--even
> > though
> > > you consider them to be irrelevant?
> >
> > I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
> confused
> > about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> > situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea
that
> > this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this and
> the
> > long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.
>
> You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my husband,
> and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been misused
> by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the
system
> can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
> about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting
any
> of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking
at
> her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that way
> more CS money flows through their greedy hands.

You are part of the system, involved in it, but it is not SOLELY about YOU.
These services are a cost to government, they don't want MORE people in it.
(this is one of those things I'll disregard because it's a rambling). If the
system has been misused against you, work together to find rational
solutions, bring them to a special interest group and help them bring them
to the lawmakers. Change the laws.

> And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has
NOT
> become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
> support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers our
> children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because
of
> our children.

I never made such an assumption. I said "I hope your family lives through
this and the long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too." I
never suggested the quarrel is with this child, but you insist on spinning
it to the poor-me angle. I have never said your children are irrelevant in
the context of life and your family, only to the determination of paternity.

> > The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
> mind,
> > but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.
>
> Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You throw
> this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.
>
> You look to punish her...
> > Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the
situation
> > would be better if he took custody?
>
> And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you seethem
> as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be helpd
> responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single
parent?
> Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
> deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money
SHE
> ALONE chose to withhold from her child?

I don't know how does it benefit your children? Your husband shouldn't be
held responsible if the mother wasn't pursuing his whereabouts, but that's
not the system we have now and that's how it should change. The system
SHOULD have provisions to protect fathers who unwittingly became fathers.
So... make the case and change the laws. As for how she spend her money,
that's another change, but how do you control or monitor it without making
the system larger.

Your husband is part of the system because he is presumed to be a "deadbeat
dad." This guilty until proven innocent and judge before mediation system is
very offensive in this area. My point I'm trying to make is please try to
find a way to be a productive voice of change, not a screeming banshee that
cannot see any point of view in this but your own.

> Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
> children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on this
> forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt me!
> So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages,
but
> gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!

Apparently you, a respresentive of an NCP (your husband), cannot see the
other purposes and reasonings for the existence of the system. The system,
at least here, is like a machine. It does not care who you are, what you do,
or how you make your living. The tactics used are not personal and frankly
may be counter-productive. Personally I advise anyone involved with the
system here to ensure they are paid up and have arrears repayment options on
the table if not in place. Why because failing to do so will be worse, the
machine will move to its next tactic and the battle gets uglier. You take
the actions of the system personally, that's the worst thing and it's wrong.

This is why I have said the system needs more heart, some implicit voice of
reason and a more appropriate mandate. They seem to have the mandate of
"squeeze all NCPs, regardless of means until they comply or are dead" they
need a mandate like "help determine appropriate support levels between CP
and NCP based on financial means and obligations."

Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization, abortion,
adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually idiots
or not, never draws the right sort of attention.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> newsgroup.
> > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> > > fairly.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of
you
> > are
> > > irrelevant!"
> >
> > Try these on:
> >
> > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to
> her
> > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was
only
> > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
girl's
> > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a
> kid
> > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand...
> it
> > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> >
> > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
these
> 13
> > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable
to
> > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed
and
> > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
> local
> > guidelines.
> >
> > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> >
> > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
> > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
>
> What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation will
> solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause
you
> problems!!!!

Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it up.

This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're useless at
debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension in
absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd be
an embarrasment.

Go tend to your children and leave the big problems to people with reasoning
skills.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> newsgroup.
> > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting children
> > > fairly.
> > >
> > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of
you
> > are
> > > irrelevant!"
> >
> > Try these on:
> >
> > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home to
> her
> > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was
only
> > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
girl's
> > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with a
> kid
> > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this one-night-stand...
> it
> > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> >
> > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
these
> 13
> > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been agreable
to
> > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed
and
> > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
> local
> > guidelines.
> >
> > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> >
> > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system... ya,
> > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
>
> What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation will
> solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause
you
> problems!!!!

Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it up.

This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're useless at
debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension in
absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd be
an embarrasment.

Go tend to your children and leave the big problems to people with reasoning
skills.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have
significantly
> > more experience
> > dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made
> indicates
> > that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers
> face
> > in family court. In fact,
> > you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
> > anything even remotely useful.
> > With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she
> wishes
> > to continue to engage your
> > repetitive nonsense.
>
> You know, you may have more history with the system but you seem to argue
> that the systems is wrong yet suggest no REAL solutions to it. You have
> biased and blurred views of what right is, even to the point of
> contradiction.
==
Quote?
==
> You feel I'm in error.. fine. I don't have the same opinions as you and I
> really think you're past thinking but rant like a banshee about how the
NCP
> is downtrodden. You refuse to see the need for the system for those who
are
> in need of it. Legitimately. You resort to name calling,
==
Quote?
==
==

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > All of us here have been through the system. Many of us have
significantly
> > more experience
> > dealing with it. The number of erroneous statements you have made
> indicates
> > that you have little to contribute to this ng or to the dilemma fathers
> face
> > in family court. In fact,
> > you have posted continually to this single thread and have yet to say
> > anything even remotely useful.
> > With that, I will back away and leave this folly to you and TM if she
> wishes
> > to continue to engage your
> > repetitive nonsense.
>
> You know, you may have more history with the system but you seem to argue
> that the systems is wrong yet suggest no REAL solutions to it. You have
> biased and blurred views of what right is, even to the point of
> contradiction.
==
Quote?
==
> You feel I'm in error.. fine. I don't have the same opinions as you and I
> really think you're past thinking but rant like a banshee about how the
NCP
> is downtrodden. You refuse to see the need for the system for those who
are
> in need of it. Legitimately. You resort to name calling,
==
Quote?
==
==

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > newsgroup.
> > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
children
> > > > fairly.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of
> you
> > > are
> > > > irrelevant!"
> > >
> > > Try these on:
> > >
> > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home
to
> > her
> > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was
> only
> > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> girl's
> > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with
a
> > kid
> > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
one-night-stand...
> > it
> > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > >
> > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
> these
> > 13
> > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
agreable
> to
> > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed
> and
> > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
> > local
> > > guidelines.
> > >
> > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system...
ya,
> > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
> >
> > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation
will
> > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause
> you
> > problems!!!!
>
> Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it
up.
>
> This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're useless
at
> debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension in
> absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd be
> an embarrasment.

And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system anyway,
unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which still
won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
necessary.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > newsgroup.
> > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
children
> > > > fairly.
> > > >
> > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest of
> you
> > > are
> > > > irrelevant!"
> > >
> > > Try these on:
> > >
> > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home
to
> > her
> > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob was
> only
> > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> girl's
> > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married with
a
> > kid
> > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
one-night-stand...
> > it
> > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > >
> > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
> these
> > 13
> > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
agreable
> to
> > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was performed
> and
> > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on the
> > local
> > > guidelines.
> > >
> > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > >
> > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system...
ya,
> > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
> >
> > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation
will
> > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer cause
> you
> > problems!!!!
>
> Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it
up.
>
> This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're useless
at
> debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension in
> absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd be
> an embarrasment.

And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system anyway,
unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which still
won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
necessary.

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > > newsgroup.
> > > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
> children
> > > > > fairly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest
of
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > > irrelevant!"
> > > >
> > > > Try these on:
> > > >
> > > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home
> to
> > > her
> > > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob
was
> > only
> > > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> > girl's
> > > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married
with
> a
> > > kid
> > > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
> one-night-stand...
> > > it
> > > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > > >
> > > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
> > these
> > > 13
> > > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
> agreable
> > to
> > > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was
performed
> > and
> > > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on
the
> > > local
> > > > guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system...
> ya,
> > > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
> > >
> > > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation
> will
> > > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer
cause
> > you
> > > problems!!!!
> >
> > Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it
> up.
> >
> > This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're
useless
> at
> > debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension
in
> > absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd
be
> > an embarrasment.
>
> And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
> to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
anyway,
> unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
still
> won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
> should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> necessary.
==
Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was chastizing
us for being whiners and not
changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it because
he doesn't know how to do it.
(That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
==
==
>
>

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > > newsgroup.
> > > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
> children
> > > > > fairly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the rest
of
> > you
> > > > are
> > > > > irrelevant!"
> > > >
> > > > Try these on:
> > > >
> > > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go home
> to
> > > her
> > > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob
was
> > only
> > > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> > girl's
> > > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married
with
> a
> > > kid
> > > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
> one-night-stand...
> > > it
> > > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > > >
> > > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a bitch
> > these
> > > 13
> > > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
> agreable
> > to
> > > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was
performed
> > and
> > > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on
the
> > > local
> > > > guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > > >
> > > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the system...
> ya,
> > > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges involvement.
> > >
> > > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says mediation
> will
> > > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer
cause
> > you
> > > problems!!!!
> >
> > Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums it
> up.
> >
> > This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're
useless
> at
> > debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension
in
> > absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband, you'd
be
> > an embarrasment.
>
> And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
> to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
anyway,
> unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
still
> won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
> should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> necessary.
==
Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was chastizing
us for being whiners and not
changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it because
he doesn't know how to do it.
(That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
==
==
>
>

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
> to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
anyway,
> unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
still
> won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
> should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> necessary.

You know... I'm a damn fool for thinking that the system should be changed
when people like you get just what you deserve and can't take it.

I don't see myself as the ultimate voice of reason, but you'll just spin
things the way to want anyway.

This last rant underlines your complete lack of capability to understand a
system from the perspective of the big picture.

How do you change the system? Find or create the lobby group to work over
the lawmakers and feed them proposals that they can push. The effort is huge
and the turnaround is not quick but if you simply rant and rave you come off
as insane and/or irrational.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...

> And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and needs
> to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
anyway,
> unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
still
> won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the system
> should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> necessary.

You know... I'm a damn fool for thinking that the system should be changed
when people like you get just what you deserve and can't take it.

I don't see myself as the ultimate voice of reason, but you'll just spin
things the way to want anyway.

This last rant underlines your complete lack of capability to understand a
system from the perspective of the big picture.

How do you change the system? Find or create the lobby group to work over
the lawmakers and feed them proposals that they can push. The effort is huge
and the turnaround is not quick but if you simply rant and rave you come off
as insane and/or irrational.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
chastizing
> us for being whiners and not
> changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
because
> he doesn't know how to do it.
> (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)

I think you're confused with some dilusional imaginary representation of me
in your head.

Listen, from day-one I have asked for input and proposed changes and
reasoning that support the system but acknowledges the need for change. It's
absolutely how I feel and my posts do reflect this. I'm not some master of
change. I am looking for answers and directions that we, the people in the
system, might pursue. You are whiners. feeling like the system itself is a
personal attack.

Get real or die a loser.

Papa

[PapaPolarbear]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...

> Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
chastizing
> us for being whiners and not
> changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
because
> he doesn't know how to do it.
> (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)

I think you're confused with some dilusional imaginary representation of me
in your head.

Listen, from day-one I have asked for input and proposed changes and
reasoning that support the system but acknowledges the need for change. It's
absolutely how I feel and my posts do reflect this. I'm not some master of
change. I am looking for answers and directions that we, the people in the
system, might pursue. You are whiners. feeling like the system itself is a
personal attack.

Get real or die a loser.

Papa

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
> chastizing
> > us for being whiners and not
> > changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
> because
> > he doesn't know how to do it.
> > (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
>
> I think you're confused with some dilusional imaginary representation of
me
> in your head.
>
> Listen, from day-one I have asked for input and proposed changes and
> reasoning that support the system but acknowledges the need for change.
It's
> absolutely how I feel and my posts do reflect this. I'm not some master of
> change. I am looking for answers and directions
==
You aren't looking for answers--If you were you wouldn't have come in
here and attacked everyone as whiners and gotten ****ed off when you were
criticized.
You are looking for ego stroking and validation and expect us to spoonfeed
you the fundamentals (ie. you totally neglected the needs of the child in
your "Proposed Tool."--Never mentioned it *once.* All the while you are
telling us how experienced you are and how inept we are.) You stated your
ideas. You think they are genius. We think they are unworkable and
worthless.You don't need to hang around here bitching at everyone. Move on.
Spread your wisdom around a little. Take your "Proposed Tool," your "Rule of
Law," and your ego over to misc.legal. It isn't fair for us to get all the
enlightenment.
==
==

[gini52]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "gini52" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
> chastizing
> > us for being whiners and not
> > changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
> because
> > he doesn't know how to do it.
> > (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
>
> I think you're confused with some dilusional imaginary representation of
me
> in your head.
>
> Listen, from day-one I have asked for input and proposed changes and
> reasoning that support the system but acknowledges the need for change.
It's
> absolutely how I feel and my posts do reflect this. I'm not some master of
> change. I am looking for answers and directions
==
You aren't looking for answers--If you were you wouldn't have come in
here and attacked everyone as whiners and gotten ****ed off when you were
criticized.
You are looking for ego stroking and validation and expect us to spoonfeed
you the fundamentals (ie. you totally neglected the needs of the child in
your "Proposed Tool."--Never mentioned it *once.* All the while you are
telling us how experienced you are and how inept we are.) You stated your
ideas. You think they are genius. We think they are unworkable and
worthless.You don't need to hang around here bitching at everyone. Move on.
Spread your wisdom around a little. Take your "Proposed Tool," your "Rule of
Law," and your ego over to misc.legal. It isn't fair for us to get all the
enlightenment.
==
==

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> > voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> > change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and
needs
> > to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
> anyway,
> > unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
> still
> > won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the
system
> > should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> > point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> > necessary.
>
> You know... I'm a damn fool for thinking that the system should be changed
> when people like you get just what you deserve and can't take it.

Your problem is that you want to work from the standpoint that the system is
necessary, period, end of statement. I, and others, do not agree that
everyone but those fortunate enough to work with an agreeable CP, should be
run through the system as if they are guilty of being deadbeats. I DO NOT
agree that the system should have ANY control in situations where no neglect
of responsibility has been displayed. YOU feel that we must have mommy and
daddy gumint looking over our shoulders and "pulling in the reins" to make
us be good little girls and boys. I disagree!

>
> I don't see myself as the ultimate voice of reason, but you'll just spin
> things the way to want anyway.
>
> This last rant underlines your complete lack of capability to understand a
> system from the perspective of the big picture.

THE SYSTEM is what is wrong!! Your beloved system should be in place ONLY
for those who have proved themselves irresponsible!

>
> How do you change the system? Find or create the lobby group to work over
> the lawmakers and feed them proposals that they can push. The effort is
huge
> and the turnaround is not quick but if you simply rant and rave you come
off
> as insane and/or irrational.

It seems that everyone who continues to disagree with you after you have
offered your enlightenment is insane, irrational, a whiner, or a loser.
<chuckle> How rational of you.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> > voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> > change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and
needs
> > to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
> anyway,
> > unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
> still
> > won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the
system
> > should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> > point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> > necessary.
>
> You know... I'm a damn fool for thinking that the system should be changed
> when people like you get just what you deserve and can't take it.

Your problem is that you want to work from the standpoint that the system is
necessary, period, end of statement. I, and others, do not agree that
everyone but those fortunate enough to work with an agreeable CP, should be
run through the system as if they are guilty of being deadbeats. I DO NOT
agree that the system should have ANY control in situations where no neglect
of responsibility has been displayed. YOU feel that we must have mommy and
daddy gumint looking over our shoulders and "pulling in the reins" to make
us be good little girls and boys. I disagree!

>
> I don't see myself as the ultimate voice of reason, but you'll just spin
> things the way to want anyway.
>
> This last rant underlines your complete lack of capability to understand a
> system from the perspective of the big picture.

THE SYSTEM is what is wrong!! Your beloved system should be in place ONLY
for those who have proved themselves irresponsible!

>
> How do you change the system? Find or create the lobby group to work over
> the lawmakers and feed them proposals that they can push. The effort is
huge
> and the turnaround is not quick but if you simply rant and rave you come
off
> as insane and/or irrational.

It seems that everyone who continues to disagree with you after you have
offered your enlightenment is insane, irrational, a whiner, or a loser.
<chuckle> How rational of you.

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
> > exist.
> > > I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> > > indicates you can't comprehend english.
> >
> > It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt
> out
> > here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a
> judge.
> > Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting
out
> > is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY
> disagree
> > that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
> > their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!
>
> Yes, it's possible here, so there's an opportunity to change the system
> where you are in the same manner if the lobbyists can show the benefits to
> the lawmakers where you are.
>
> > What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced,
and
> > why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of
the
> > system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
> > brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of
> the
> > system.
>
> I have listened and read and I understand completely. I do not brush off
> tough questions I disregard the ramblings of idiots.
>
> > > > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
> > children,
> > > > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for
the
> > > fact
> > > > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
> > should
> > > > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
> > that
> > > > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the
consequences--even
> > > though
> > > > you consider them to be irrelevant?
> > >
> > > I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
> > confused
> > > about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> > > situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea
> that
> > > this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this
and
> > the
> > > long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.
> >
> > You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my
husband,
> > and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been
misused
> > by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the
> system
> > can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
> > about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting
> any
> > of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking
> at
> > her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that
way
> > more CS money flows through their greedy hands.
>
> You are part of the system, involved in it, but it is not SOLELY about
YOU.
> These services are a cost to government, they don't want MORE people in
it.


<chuckle> I have to laugh at this one. You do realize, do you not, that
the more CS $$ the state collects, the more federal $$ they receive. Far
from "not wanting more people" in the system, they have adjusted the system
so they can collect from as many people as they possibly can--to get the big
bucks! And a very large percentage of people they are collecting from had
never missed a payment before they were glommed by the system. <chuckle>
....don't want more people...hahahahaha....

> (this is one of those things I'll disregard because it's a rambling). If
the
> system has been misused against you, work together to find rational
> solutions, bring them to a special interest group and help them bring them
> to the lawmakers. Change the laws.

Absolutely, PPB, I'll do that next Thursday on my lunch break...problem will
be solved by dinner......

>
> > And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has
> NOT
> > become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
> > support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers
our
> > children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because
> of
> > our children.
>
> I never made such an assumption. I said "I hope your family lives through
> this and the long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too." I
> never suggested the quarrel is with this child, but you insist on spinning
> it to the poor-me angle.

No "poor me" there, PPB. Simply the assertion that the system you adore
sucks snot on this issue.

I have never said your children are irrelevant in
> the context of life and your family, only to the determination of
paternity.

Why would our children have anything at all to do with the establishment of
paternity for another child? This makes no sense whatsoever. OF COURSE our
children have NOTHING to do with the paternity of their half sister.

>
> > > The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
> > mind,
> > > but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.
> >
> > Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You
throw
> > this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.
> >
> > You look to punish her...
> > > Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the
> situation
> > > would be better if he took custody?
> >
> > And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you
seethem
> > as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be
helpd
> > responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single
> parent?
> > Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
> > deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money
> SHE
> > ALONE chose to withhold from her child?
>
> I don't know how does it benefit your children? Your husband shouldn't be
> held responsible if the mother wasn't pursuing his whereabouts, but that's
> not the system we have now and that's how it should change.

And would you also place responsibilities on Slutty Mummy by requiring her
to support her children financially? Hmmmm?

The system
> SHOULD have provisions to protect fathers who unwittingly became fathers.
> So... make the case and change the laws. As for how she spend her money,
> that's another change, but how do you control or monitor it without making
> the system larger.

Like I said, next Thursday on my lunch break.

>
> Your husband is part of the system because he is presumed to be a
"deadbeat
> dad." This guilty until proven innocent and judge before mediation system
is
> very offensive in this area. My point I'm trying to make is please try to
> find a way to be a productive voice of change, not a screeming banshee
that
> cannot see any point of view in this but your own.

*I* can't see any point but my own? Any mirrors in your house, PPB?
<snicker>

>
> > Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
> > children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on
this
> > forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt
me!
> > So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages,
> but
> > gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!
>
> Apparently you, a respresentive of an NCP (your husband), cannot see the
> other purposes and reasonings for the existence of the system.

No, I can't. I can see NO REASON to subject those who have not proved
themselves to be irresponsible to be subjected to your beloved and revered
system. I can see not reason to say "But John Smith flaked out on his
paternal responsibilities, so everyone everywhere who bears thesign of the
penis must be punished in advance of any crime." You're right--I can see no
reason for the innocent to be punished for the crimes of the guilty!


The system,
> at least here, is like a machine. It does not care who you are, what you
do,
> or how you make your living. The tactics used are not personal and frankly
> may be counter-productive. Personally I advise anyone involved with the
> system here to ensure they are paid up and have arrears repayment options
on
> the table if not in place. Why because failing to do so will be worse, the
> machine will move to its next tactic and the battle gets uglier. You take
> the actions of the system personally, that's the worst thing and it's
wrong.

And let's sacrifice a few virgins to the volcano god while we're at it.

>
> This is why I have said the system needs more heart, some implicit voice
of
> reason and a more appropriate mandate. They seem to have the mandate of
> "squeeze all NCPs, regardless of means until they comply or are dead" they
> need a mandate like "help determine appropriate support levels between CP
> and NCP based on financial means and obligations."

Yep, the sacrifice of the virgins should do it. How about next Thursday on
my lunch break?

>
> Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization,
abortion,
> adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually
idiots
> or not, never draws the right sort of attention.

Oh, come on, PPB. I never advocated having you sterilized!

[teachrmama]

"PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I have always said the system needs to change but the system needs to
> > exist.
> > > I have also said I support opting out but the above statement clearly
> > > indicates you can't comprehend english.
> >
> > It may be possible to "opt out" where you are. It is IMPOSSIBLE to opt
> out
> > here, unless there is an amicable split that has never been before a
> judge.
> > Once you're in, you're in. And it is 100% the CP's choice. So opting
out
> > is NOT the "choice" that you seem to think it is. And I ABSOLUTELY
> disagree
> > that the system should be in place for ANYONE but those who have shirked
> > their responsibilities. NOBODY else deserves to be in the system!
>
> Yes, it's possible here, so there's an opportunity to change the system
> where you are in the same manner if the lobbyists can show the benefits to
> the lawmakers where you are.
>
> > What you should be doing is listening to what others have experienced,
and
> > why, and incorporating their superior knowledge of certain aspects of
the
> > system into your understanding of the system. You do not do this. You
> > brush off any question that does not fit into your limited knowledge of
> the
> > system.
>
> I have listened and read and I understand completely. I do not brush off
> tough questions I disregard the ramblings of idiots.
>
> > > > As for your extremely nasty attitude toward my husband and out 2
> > children,
> > > > did it ever occur to you that Slutty Mummy is 100% responsible for
the
> > > fact
> > > > that he did not know about his child? Did it occur to you that SHE
> > should
> > > > be given some sort of consequence for her abhorrent behavior, rather
> > that
> > > > your thought that our 2 children should absorb the
consequences--even
> > > though
> > > > you consider them to be irrelevant?
> > >
> > > I have no attitude towards your husband and your situation. You are
> > confused
> > > about my discussion of the system and it's flaws and your PERSONAL
> > > situation. Separate yourself for a moment and you MIGHT get the idea
> that
> > > this is not about YOU. Frankly I hope your family lives through this
and
> > the
> > > long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too.
> >
> > You ae very, very arrogant!! Yes, the system is about me, and my
husband,
> > and my children, and Bob, and Gini, and everyone else who has been
misused
> > by government-run-amok. Yes, it is about all of us--and the way the
> system
> > can use all of us any way it wants to with no accountability. And it is
> > about Slutty Mummy, who has not an ounce of responsibility in supporting
> any
> > of her children, and her children who suffer from the government winking
> at
> > her outrageous behavior and not hloding her accountable, because that
way
> > more CS money flows through their greedy hands.
>
> You are part of the system, involved in it, but it is not SOLELY about
YOU.
> These services are a cost to government, they don't want MORE people in
it.


<chuckle> I have to laugh at this one. You do realize, do you not, that
the more CS $$ the state collects, the more federal $$ they receive. Far
from "not wanting more people" in the system, they have adjusted the system
so they can collect from as many people as they possibly can--to get the big
bucks! And a very large percentage of people they are collecting from had
never missed a payment before they were glommed by the system. <chuckle>
....don't want more people...hahahahaha....

> (this is one of those things I'll disregard because it's a rambling). If
the
> system has been misused against you, work together to find rational
> solutions, bring them to a special interest group and help them bring them
> to the lawmakers. Change the laws.

Absolutely, PPB, I'll do that next Thursday on my lunch break...problem will
be solved by dinner......

>
> > And you aer equally arrogant for assuming that my husband's daughter has
> NOT
> > become a member of our family. I have repeatedly said that she deserves
> > support. My quarrel is not with her, but with a system that considers
our
> > children irrelevant just because no money flows into their hands because
> of
> > our children.
>
> I never made such an assumption. I said "I hope your family lives through
> this and the long-lost daughter becomes a member of your family too." I
> never suggested the quarrel is with this child, but you insist on spinning
> it to the poor-me angle.

No "poor me" there, PPB. Simply the assertion that the system you adore
sucks snot on this issue.

I have never said your children are irrelevant in
> the context of life and your family, only to the determination of
paternity.

Why would our children have anything at all to do with the establishment of
paternity for another child? This makes no sense whatsoever. OF COURSE our
children have NOTHING to do with the paternity of their half sister.

>
> > > The "Slutty Mummy" may be 100% responsible for his not knowing in your
> > mind,
> > > but her actions do not excuse his responsibility.
> >
> > Please show me where I ever said that he has no responsibility. You
throw
> > this out repeatedly, with no basis in fact.
> >
> > You look to punish her...
> > > Ok. How? How would that benefit the child? Do you feel that the
> situation
> > > would be better if he took custody?
> >
> > And how does impoverishing us benefit our children? Oh, yeah, you
seethem
> > as irrelevant, a waste of breathable air. Why should my husband be
helpd
> > responsible for all the years that Slutty Mummy chose to be a single
> parent?
> > Why should he have arrearages charged to his account, as if he were a
> > deadbeat? Why should Slutty Mummy not be held responsible for the money
> SHE
> > ALONE chose to withhold from her child?
>
> I don't know how does it benefit your children? Your husband shouldn't be
> held responsible if the mother wasn't pursuing his whereabouts, but that's
> not the system we have now and that's how it should change.

And would you also place responsibilities on Slutty Mummy by requiring her
to support her children financially? Hmmmm?

The system
> SHOULD have provisions to protect fathers who unwittingly became fathers.
> So... make the case and change the laws. As for how she spend her money,
> that's another change, but how do you control or monitor it without making
> the system larger.

Like I said, next Thursday on my lunch break.

>
> Your husband is part of the system because he is presumed to be a
"deadbeat
> dad." This guilty until proven innocent and judge before mediation system
is
> very offensive in this area. My point I'm trying to make is please try to
> find a way to be a productive voice of change, not a screeming banshee
that
> cannot see any point of view in this but your own.

*I* can't see any point but my own? Any mirrors in your house, PPB?
<snicker>

>
> > Oh, but I am so sure you do, Oh Great Wisdom! You of the irrelevant
> > children and blameless mommies. Do you really think that the NCPs on
this
> > forum can look at the system and say "Oh, but they don't MEAN to hurt
me!
> > So what if the system enforces a CS order that is higher than my wages,
> but
> > gves me no access to my children. It's not personal!" BS!!
>
> Apparently you, a respresentive of an NCP (your husband), cannot see the
> other purposes and reasonings for the existence of the system.

No, I can't. I can see NO REASON to subject those who have not proved
themselves to be irresponsible to be subjected to your beloved and revered
system. I can see not reason to say "But John Smith flaked out on his
paternal responsibilities, so everyone everywhere who bears thesign of the
penis must be punished in advance of any crime." You're right--I can see no
reason for the innocent to be punished for the crimes of the guilty!


The system,
> at least here, is like a machine. It does not care who you are, what you
do,
> or how you make your living. The tactics used are not personal and frankly
> may be counter-productive. Personally I advise anyone involved with the
> system here to ensure they are paid up and have arrears repayment options
on
> the table if not in place. Why because failing to do so will be worse, the
> machine will move to its next tactic and the battle gets uglier. You take
> the actions of the system personally, that's the worst thing and it's
wrong.

And let's sacrifice a few virgins to the volcano god while we're at it.

>
> This is why I have said the system needs more heart, some implicit voice
of
> reason and a more appropriate mandate. They seem to have the mandate of
> "squeeze all NCPs, regardless of means until they comply or are dead" they
> need a mandate like "help determine appropriate support levels between CP
> and NCP based on financial means and obligations."

Yep, the sacrifice of the virgins should do it. How about next Thursday on
my lunch break?

>
> Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization,
abortion,
> adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually
idiots
> or not, never draws the right sort of attention.

Oh, come on, PPB. I never advocated having you sterilized!

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > > > newsgroup.
> > > > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
> > children
> > > > > > fairly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the
rest
> of
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > irrelevant!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Try these on:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go
home
> > to
> > > > her
> > > > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob
> was
> > > only
> > > > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> > > girl's
> > > > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married
> with
> > a
> > > > kid
> > > > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
> > one-night-stand...
> > > > it
> > > > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a
bitch
> > > these
> > > > 13
> > > > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
> > agreable
> > > to
> > > > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was
> performed
> > > and
> > > > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on
> the
> > > > local
> > > > > guidelines.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the
system...
> > ya,
> > > > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges
involvement.
> > > >
> > > > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says
mediation
> > will
> > > > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer
> cause
> > > you
> > > > problems!!!!
> > >
> > > Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums
it
> > up.
> > >
> > > This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're
> useless
> > at
> > > debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension
> in
> > > absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband,
you'd
> be
> > > an embarrasment.
> >
> > And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> > voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> > change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and
needs
> > to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
> anyway,
> > unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
> still
> > won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the
system
> > should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> > point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> > necessary.
> ==
> Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
chastizing
> us for being whiners and not
> changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
because
> he doesn't know how to do it.
> (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
> ==
> ==

So, Gini, what do you think PPB would do if he were a judge in the family
court system? Think he'd still consider our children to be irrelevant? Or
would his wisdom heal the entire system as oil on troubled waters?

[teachrmama]

"gini52" > wrote in message
...
>
> "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "PapaPolarbear" > wrote in message
> > > > .. .
> > > > >
> > > > > "teachrmama" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Frankly the discussion of marriage and divorce is for another
> > > > newsgroup.
> > > > > > > Child support is not about marriages, it's about supporting
> > children
> > > > > > fairly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ah, yes--fairly--like "You are the favored eldest child--the
rest
> of
> > > you
> > > > > are
> > > > > > irrelevant!"
> > > > >
> > > > > Try these on:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob meets Hilda in a bar in 1990 and they have a blast, they go
home
> > to
> > > > her
> > > > > place and they have sex... 9 months later a child is born but Bob
> was
> > > only
> > > > > in town for that one night, or maybe a week. In 2003 a 13 year old
> > > girl's
> > > > > mother happens to run into him and they swap info... he's married
> with
> > a
> > > > kid
> > > > > of his own and a good life. His wife knows about this
> > one-night-stand...
> > > > it
> > > > > came up over a beer when they were dating. No problems...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hilda feels she deserves support for this child life's been a
bitch
> > > these
> > > > 13
> > > > > years. She takes him to court. Oh Bob probably would have been
> > agreable
> > > to
> > > > > support but she felt the system was better. The DNA test was
> performed
> > > and
> > > > > we know the results. The judge decided the support amount based on
> the
> > > > local
> > > > > guidelines.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bob pays and gains a daughter.
> > > > >
> > > > > What's wrong with this picture? The unnecessary use of the
system...
> > ya,
> > > > > that's about it. So insist on mediation before a judges
involvement.
> > > >
> > > > What planet did you say you lived on? Hey, folks, PPB says
mediation
> > will
> > > > solve all your problems, and the CPs in your lives will no longer
> cause
> > > you
> > > > problems!!!!
> > >
> > > Ok TM... You're a fool. I was trying to think otherwise but this sums
it
> > up.
> > >
> > > This is an example. It's your example simplified actually. You're
> useless
> > at
> > > debating and rationalizing and appear an idiot for your comprehension
> in
> > > absolutes. I really hope you don't go to court with your husband,
you'd
> be
> > > an embarrasment.
> >
> > And YOU are a damn fool. You sit there seeing yourself as this ultimate
> > voice of reason, and can't even see that you present NOTHING of use to
> > change the system. You eventually agree that the system is wrong and
needs
> > to be changed, but insist that all NCPs be sucked through the system
> anyway,
> > unless they can convince their CP to agree to stay out of it. (Which
> still
> > won't work in many cases.) So, Great Sage, how is it you think the
system
> > should be changed? Maybe I have just missed how to do this. Point by
> > point, tell us the steps to take to change the system that you find so
> > necessary.
> ==
> Hehe....He can't do it, TM. Remeber his first posts here--he was
chastizing
> us for being whiners and not
> changing the system and then demanded that we tell him how to do it
because
> he doesn't know how to do it.
> (That was about his most intellectual post ;-)
> ==
> ==

So, Gini, what do you think PPB would do if he were a judge in the family
court system? Think he'd still consider our children to be irrelevant? Or
would his wisdom heal the entire system as oil on troubled waters?

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote
..........................................
> > Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization,
> abortion,
> > adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually
> idiots
> > or not, never draws the right sort of attention.
>
> Oh, come on, PPB. I never advocated having you sterilized!
==
I'd consider it.
==
==
>
>

[gini52]

"teachrmama" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PapaPolarbear" > wrote
..........................................
> > Maybe laws need to come to being that support forced sterization,
> abortion,
> > adoption. But the rantings of idiots, whether the people are actually
> idiots
> > or not, never draws the right sort of attention.
>
> Oh, come on, PPB. I never advocated having you sterilized!
==
I'd consider it.
==
==
>
>

[Virginia]

PapaPolarbear wrote:
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...

> If the father is made aware of a child's existance within a safe timeframe,
> one could argue that he should have the same right to initiate the
> abortion/adoption that the mother has. If she declines these options the
> father is not responsible for support. That would be a good change to the
> laws. This would be a good thing to establish a precedent for.


Do you also think a man should be able to force a woman to have a baby
she does not wish to have.

[Virginia]

PapaPolarbear wrote:
> "Paul Fritz" > wrote in message
> ...

> If the father is made aware of a child's existance within a safe timeframe,
> one could argue that he should have the same right to initiate the
> abortion/adoption that the mother has. If she declines these options the
> father is not responsible for support. That would be a good change to the
> laws. This would be a good thing to establish a precedent for.


Do you also think a man should be able to force a woman to have a baby
she does not wish to have.

[JD Hoeye]

PapaPolarbear stated non-coprehension:

I don't see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything
to do with marriage.

Papa


whether they do or not depends on ones position at to whether: genital sexual
contact, fathering/mothering, parenting and supporting a child are activities
properly reserved to, the product of, a marrage; wherein the marrage is
pre-requisite thereto.

if so, then they have everything to do with marrage.

if not, then they have nothing specificly connecting them with marrage.

to be specific however, financial/parental responsibilities have everything to
do with marrage so long as the marrage exists as a functioning entity... and
nothing to do with it once the functionality of a marrage ceases since at that
point the marrage no longer exists no matter any legal state of existence
applies or not.

therefore, CS, financial or parental responsibilities do exist apart and
independent of the existance of a marrage...

a contradiction which appears to exist in spite of, and in the face of, all
natural laws of nature and the almighty to the contrary because the civilized,
modern, culture, of man presumes and has seen fit to superceed thier's with our
own laws.

IMHO, that is.


_
jd
---
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position, Manipulate the Data.
(Governmental Operational Directive, Particularly Law Enforcement.)

[JD Hoeye]

PapaPolarbear stated non-coprehension:

I don't see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything
to do with marriage.

Papa


whether they do or not depends on ones position at to whether: genital sexual
contact, fathering/mothering, parenting and supporting a child are activities
properly reserved to, the product of, a marrage; wherein the marrage is
pre-requisite thereto.

if so, then they have everything to do with marrage.

if not, then they have nothing specificly connecting them with marrage.

to be specific however, financial/parental responsibilities have everything to
do with marrage so long as the marrage exists as a functioning entity... and
nothing to do with it once the functionality of a marrage ceases since at that
point the marrage no longer exists no matter any legal state of existence
applies or not.

therefore, CS, financial or parental responsibilities do exist apart and
independent of the existance of a marrage...

a contradiction which appears to exist in spite of, and in the face of, all
natural laws of nature and the almighty to the contrary because the civilized,
modern, culture, of man presumes and has seen fit to superceed thier's with our
own laws.

IMHO, that is.


_
jd
---
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position, Manipulate the Data.
(Governmental Operational Directive, Particularly Law Enforcement.)

[JD Hoeye]

PapaPolarbear stated non-coprehension:

I don't see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything
to do with marriage.

Papa


whether they do or not depends on ones position at to whether: genital sexual
contact, fathering/mothering, parenting and supporting a child are activities
properly reserved to, the product of, a marrage; wherein the marrage is
pre-requisite thereto.

if so, then they have everything to do with marrage.

if not, then they have nothing specificly connecting them with marrage.

to be specific however, financial/parental responsibilities have everything to
do with marrage so long as the marrage exists as a functioning entity... and
nothing to do with it once the functionality of a marrage ceases since at that
point the marrage no longer exists no matter any legal state of existence
applies or not.

therefore, CS, financial or parental responsibilities do exist apart and
independent of the existance of a marrage...

a contradiction which appears to exist in spite of, and in the face of, all
natural laws of nature and the almighty to the contrary because the civilized,
modern, culture, of man presumes and has seen fit to superceed thier's with our
own laws.

IMHO, that is.


_
jd
---
If the Facts Fail to Support Your Position, Manipulate the Data.
(Governmental Operational Directive, Particularly Law Enforcement.)