"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for
illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your
drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They
are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than
cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the
child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.


I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?


CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.

My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an
accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is
undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state
law.


Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.

Not true. See above.