Name change because parent not visiting child
Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. With all due respect, I've not a clue what you're rambling about. Most people in this conversation are espousing a libertarian point of view on the subject, I am espousing a composite between a liberal and populist point of view(which from the libertarian point of view looks socialist). If you notice phil's reply above you can see that just because you havent realized the underlieing issues doesnt mean I am rambling. Ghostwriter |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who choose to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but it would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it is, those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant about not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force money from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the children, many see the falicy and opt out. So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be undetermined and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt going to lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a Libertarian rosetintted view personally. No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the children need. Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents act like adults. So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones? Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of the children, instead of just being walking wallets. Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as mothers. So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones? Let the parents decide together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees required--instead of mom being able to go to court to force dad to pay more because *she* decides that Little League is important. Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are able to decide ANYTHING together. So you prefer preventing those that can because a few (on each side) won't? Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or purposely neglect their children? Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but it would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in which it wouldnt work. Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the above system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it. By the way nothing says a child support order must be in place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make the NCP pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because the CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt. Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy CPs. And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt would be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus unacceptable levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or another, experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake, bigger helping of steak, whatever. Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for their children. I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin with, IMO. What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and being unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state (a clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only blameless party, the kids. And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother, who has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than bare bones support for her children. She gets to spend the rest however she wants to. She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's silly to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children with that child support money, puts them on welfare rations, tattered clothing from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so the mom can what? Buy lottery tickets? TM did NOT say she pays none of the bills from C$. Read it again. She also gets bills that vary according to HER lifestyle. That is an important point you keep overlooking. C$ is a set and unwavering amount of money, needed or not. Actual costs are extremely variable. Oh, and I'm sure that many women who receive C$ (and welfare) do indeed buy lottery tickets. You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children first - realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent from onlyt providing the bare bones support for their children, and then spend the rest however they want it to - why would you hold a divorced parent to a different standard? That is EXACTLY what she's asking... that you failed to answer. Why the double standard? I'm sure all readers who have been reading here (alt.c-s) for more than a few months are aware of your low opinion of fathers and that you seem to feel that they never share priorities that you seem to think only mothers have in regard to their children. There really IS nothing to stop married parents from only providing the bare bones support for their children: the difference is that the married parents can INSURE that the support for the children actually gets TO THE CHILDREN without filtering it through another adult who may or may not be honorable. Statistics indicate that the amount of interaction between parent and child is a good indicator of how well the parent supports the children. (IOW, as you forcefully decrease interaction, you risk less likelihood of C$ payments). In the end, if the mantra 'its for the children' is accurate, it should also apply to married parents... 'for the children's sake'. Phil #3 The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to support their children but when they are removed by force and prevented from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with relative accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents not fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large part results from the problem. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the children's needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything at all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest, which many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used for or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according to the rules. Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for the child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand challanges on ever little detail. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the court to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children? This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate (court order), have the ability to spend less than the official guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in any state. No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to fail invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is likley far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect whereas a NCP can not. On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial parent with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even minimally. Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way insure a standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much to avoid neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some lollapaloozers in the course of my career. I know how little is necessary to avoid a neglect label! Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose to fully support their families, including children, without court orders. By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP, equality reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of children raised without a father present in the home develop behavorial problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are from single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households, single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute 59%. The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely to be in juvenile prisons than children of single father households. Children of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of two parent households to be in juvenile prisons. Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother households are below poverty, what percentage of single father households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would suggest that more child support to get the single mother households above poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that is what you were trying to say. But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going to make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the children. They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many separated families do you think there are where the father is living high on the hog, while mother and children languish in poverty? How many separated families do you think there are where the mother is living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty? Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in either scenario' |
Name change because parent not visiting child
teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few children, I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not? How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of NCPs can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children. You have a level of information and understanding about each child in your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge, and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of both situations are completely different. Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental support. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives. That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers", but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger mess than the current system. Ghostwriter |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. With all due respect, I've not a clue what you're rambling about. Most people in this conversation are espousing a libertarian point of view on the subject, I am espousing a composite between a liberal and populist point of view(which from the libertarian point of view looks socialist). If you notice phil's reply above you can see that just because you havent realized the underlieing issues doesnt mean I am rambling. Ghostwriter And therein lies the difference: American Heritage Dictionary Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/ -noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will. -adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty. 4. maintaining the doctrine of free will. Populist: American Heritage Dictionary :pop·u·list (ppy-lst) n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people. WordNet : socialism (ssh-lzm) n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution as written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the rights that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS rules. Phil #3 |
Name change because parent not visiting child
Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. With all due respect, I've not a clue what you're rambling about. Most people in this conversation are espousing a libertarian point of view on the subject, I am espousing a composite between a liberal and populist point of view(which from the libertarian point of view looks socialist). If you notice phil's reply above you can see that just because you havent realized the underlieing issues doesnt mean I am rambling. Ghostwriter And therein lies the difference: American Heritage Dictionary Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/ -noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will. -adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty. 4. maintaining the doctrine of free will. Populist: American Heritage Dictionary :pop·u·list (ppy-lst) n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people. WordNet : socialism (ssh-lzm) n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution as written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the rights that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS rules. Phil #3 Take a long hard look at the 9th amendment. Basically it states that unenumerated rights can have standing against enumerated rights. Thankfully the SCOTUS has always held that unenumerated rights have to be read from the enumerated ones. Thus the right to the pursuit of happyness and due process require a "right to privacy". But the constitution is clear that unenumberated rights exist and that it is the SCOTUS job to establish how they relate to the enumerated ones. So you are right, populism and socialism cant and shouldnt exist in pure form in the US. But a composite can certainly exist provided that it is based on reasonable unenumerated rights. Basically the founding fathers knew they couldnt predict the future and left it up the the courts to figure it out. Ghostwriter 666 thinsp.png MB5!.1PT*&@H````-24A$4@````(````$" 8```"D[^XY````!F)+1T0`_P#_ M`/^@O:3````"7!(67,```L3```+$P$`FIP8````!W1)344'U@(# $08U?L# *Y" "8((` ` end begin 666 obreve.gif M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(4A ^!HP( 0C3M*)OA6I=ONGT6B2* `.P`` ` end begin 666 prime.gif M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$; *0)2JVHLO00$`.P`` ` end begin 666 schwa.gif M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I^$6 ,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[ ` end begin 666 ibreve.gif M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(1A ^!HP( `` ` end begin 666 omacr.gif M1TE&.#EA!@`.`/``/___P```$T`=9_WOPR"9H%U'U `G$CWO["3`0!,`$T` M``!-``\```!'U `..IO`%!``"4\V\`J(C[OZB!][______A.IO`"A)][\` M````=1]0`)Q(][\!````7!]0`+OQ0P#8,5 `/-O`&8```!'U ```0``.P4 M4 `!````V#%0`$P`````! ````! `-@Q4 ````````````$```#P%5 `! $` M````````````[!10`/CJ;P!L``@`#P`5``````!'U `8'- `-0"2 !/&5N M``2(W:%____````+B !6P``_P`!`/___P`DT4Z7&%H9#-H=&U1TE&`&]M `'!O``((``",ZV\`( `'!O``,` M`@@```((`@!O`'9[+%,"""8"-MU-3Z%``!$`0(`IP6&YBD! `A`@`````V MW9)[90? "C;=```"" ``I'MO'@((`@A$`:%U@4`````MGO/'$$``#./[7 MYQ8``.6.(UH1[7UHL^-\\7`0#%" ``@"8!&\```#[5[77P$$C %$*.@" M`)S?`@#G%K3G`@"8!&\`6'P@`(\!^'L,*O_`@@```````!` 10`/(PM)%\7 M````````% 0@`)S?`@#G%H2,13I86AD,VAT;5Q'249;VUA8W(N9VEF``#, M9R)7P$O$@``7P$````````4!" `7GP7#[7```P`#8`M."`!P/K'PH`(\! M7BF8!9T%N'P@`(\!#"KWOS `,SO;P"( M)O_U!WVOP!P;P`?0?_10```%@?4 #MB?_`@4```````! ````# !-```` M30!8'U `0 `````````"!0```@4``/SL;P"!B__``!-`)B+][\``$T`00`` M`$$```!F``````````$````@[6\`R9KWOP``30`&F__#()F@68```!F```` M``0``&8````%AD,```0``"'Y! $`````+ `````&``X`0 @A``$('!A@(("" :!Q$:%!B@H4.%!QE"7$@184&(%QE2W!@0`#L` ` end begin 666 lprime.gif M1TE&.#EA`P`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````#`!8```(+A(\)8;P- 'E9PT$10`.P`` ` end |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few children, I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not? How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of NCPs can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children. You have a level of information and understanding about each child in your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge, and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of both situations are completely different. Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental support. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives. That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers", but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger mess than the current system. Ghostwriter After reading this several times, the only way I can summarize it is that you prefer punishing men with or without cause. Phil #3 |
Name change because parent not visiting child
Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few children, I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not? How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of NCPs can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children. You have a level of information and understanding about each child in your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge, and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of both situations are completely different. Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental support. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives. That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers", but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger mess than the current system. Ghostwriter After reading this several times, the only way I can summarize it is that you prefer punishing men with or without cause. Phil #3 I perfer punishing men over punishing children. I would rather punish with cause, but am willing to accept that the increases in social services necessary to figure out who has given cause are unlikley to be inacted anytime soon. As long as one side wraps themselves in the plight of the the single mothers like a flag, and the other side accuses them of every vile thing imaginable while claiming to be principled, nothing is going to be accomplished. If the fathers rights people woke up and started screaming for the heads of the true deadbeats and abusive fathers, while advocating more reasonable standards for those fathers that had met a measureable standard, them maybe something might happen. But like I said not likley to happen in the near future. Ghostwriter |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. With all due respect, I've not a clue what you're rambling about. Most people in this conversation are espousing a libertarian point of view on the subject, I am espousing a composite between a liberal and populist point of view(which from the libertarian point of view looks socialist). If you notice phil's reply above you can see that just because you havent realized the underlieing issues doesnt mean I am rambling. Ghostwriter And therein lies the difference: American Heritage Dictionary Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/ -noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct. 2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will. -adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty. 4. maintaining the doctrine of free will. Populist: American Heritage Dictionary :pop·u·list (ppy-lst) n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people. WordNet : socialism (ssh-lzm) n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an economic system based on state ownership of capital Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1) 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. 2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory. 3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution as written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the rights that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS rules. Phil #3 Take a long hard look at the 9th amendment. Basically it states that unenumerated rights can have standing against enumerated rights. Thankfully the SCOTUS has always held that unenumerated rights have to be read from the enumerated ones. Thus the right to the pursuit of happyness and due process require a "right to privacy". But the constitution is clear that unenumberated rights exist and that it is the SCOTUS job to establish how they relate to the enumerated ones. So you are right, populism and socialism cant and shouldnt exist in pure form in the US. But a composite can certainly exist provided that it is based on reasonable unenumerated rights. Basically the founding fathers knew they couldnt predict the future and left it up the the courts to figure it out. Ghostwriter The problem is that the SCOTUS changes it's collective mind depending on politics. Such as the case with Brown Vs the Board of Education (1954) overturning their century-old Plessy Vs Ferguson decision (1896). While I agree with the basis for the idea of Brown vs Board of Education, what is puzzling is that they made diametrically different decisions on the same subject according to the same Constitution. With that in mind, who's to say any decision they make is 'right' or perhaps just 'right now' for it may well be overturned by the same court on a later date. Phil #3 |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few children, I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not? How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of NCPs can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children. You have a level of information and understanding about each child in your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge, and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of both situations are completely different. Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental support. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives. That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers", but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger mess than the current system. Ghostwriter After reading this several times, the only way I can summarize it is that you prefer punishing men with or without cause. Phil #3 I perfer punishing men over punishing children. I would rather punish with cause, but am willing to accept that the increases in social services necessary to figure out who has given cause are unlikley to be inacted anytime soon. As long as one side wraps themselves in the plight of the the single mothers like a flag, and the other side accuses them of every vile thing imaginable while claiming to be principled, nothing is going to be accomplished. If the fathers rights people woke up and started screaming for the heads of the true deadbeats and abusive fathers, while advocating more reasonable standards for those fathers that had met a measureable standard, them maybe something might happen. But like I said not likley to happen in the near future. Ghostwriter You must not read the replies to your posts for that is exactly what Teachermama and others have been saying. And it's not "father's" rights but "equal" rights. Phil #3 |
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Phil wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who choose to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but it would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it is, those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant about not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force money from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the children, many see the falicy and opt out. So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be undetermined and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt going to lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a Libertarian rosetintted view personally. No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the children need. Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents act like adults. So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones? Please don't put *your* words into *my* response. Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of the children, instead of just being walking wallets. Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as mothers. So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones? Please don't put *your* words into *my* response. Let the parents decide together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees required--instead of mom being able to go to court to force dad to pay more because *she* decides that Little League is important. Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are able to decide ANYTHING together. So you prefer preventing those that can because a few (on each side) won't? Please don't put *your* words into *my* response. Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or purposely neglect their children? Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but it would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in which it wouldnt work. Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the above system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting from those who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS time and energy are available for those who refuse to do what is right. The current is actually making it *easier* for true deadbeats to get away with it. By the way nothing says a child support order must be in place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make the NCP pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because the CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt. Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy CPs. And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt would be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus unacceptable levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or another, experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake, bigger helping of steak, whatever. Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for their children. Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP mothers who are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents, too, and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children. I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin with, IMO. What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and being unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state (a clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only blameless party, the kids. And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother, who has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than bare bones support for her children. She gets to spend the rest however she wants to. She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's silly to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children with that child support money, puts them on welfare rations, tattered clothing from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so the mom can what? Buy lottery tickets? TM did NOT say she pays none of the bills from C$. Read it again. She also gets bills that vary according to HER lifestyle. That is an important point you keep overlooking. C$ is a set and unwavering amount of money, needed or not. Actual costs are extremely variable. Oh, and I'm sure that many women who receive C$ (and welfare) do indeed buy lottery tickets. You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children first - realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent from onlyt providing the bare bones support for their children, and then spend the rest however they want it to - why would you hold a divorced parent to a different standard? That is EXACTLY what she's asking... that you failed to answer. Why the double standard? I'm sure all readers who have been reading here (alt.c-s) for more than a few months are aware of your low opinion of fathers and that you seem to feel that they never share priorities that you seem to think only mothers have in regard to their children. There really IS nothing to stop married parents from only providing the bare bones support for their children: the difference is that the married parents can INSURE that the support for the children actually gets TO THE CHILDREN without filtering it through another adult who may or may not be honorable. Statistics indicate that the amount of interaction between parent and child is a good indicator of how well the parent supports the children. (IOW, as you forcefully decrease interaction, you risk less likelihood of C$ payments). In the end, if the mantra 'its for the children' is accurate, it should also apply to married parents... 'for the children's sake'. Phil #3 The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to support their children but when they are removed by force and prevented from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with relative accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents not fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large part results from the problem. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the children's needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything at all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest, which many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used for or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according to the rules. Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for the child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand challanges on ever little detail. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the court to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children? This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate (court order), have the ability to spend less than the official guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in any state. No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to fail invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is likley far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect whereas a NCP can not. On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial parent with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even minimally. Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way insure a standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much to avoid neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some lollapaloozers in the course of my career. I know how little is necessary to avoid a neglect label! Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose to fully support their families, including children, without court orders. By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP, equality reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of children raised without a father present in the home develop behavorial problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are from single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households, single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute 59%. The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely to be in juvenile prisons than children of single father households. Children of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of two parent households to be in juvenile prisons. Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother households are below poverty, what percentage of single father households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would suggest that more child support to get the single mother households above poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that is what you were trying to say. But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going to make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the children. They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many separated families do you think there are where the father is living high on the hog, while mother and children languish in poverty? How many separated families do you think there are where the mother is living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty? Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in either scenario' |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ParentingBanter.com