On Nov 20, 5:27 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message
...

On Nov 20, 9:41 am, "teachrmama" wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...

In article , teachrmama says...

Oh, so you think the 2 year old and the 5 year old should sit in on the
negotiations? Because the parents would be likely trying to rip their
children off, and the 2 year old and the 5 year old should be their to
stand
up for themselves? Wow--interesting concept.

Of course not. That's why it is made certain that their interests are
represented by someone *else*, and someone disinterested and competent
in
the
relevent laws and practices of the situation. It is certainly fair to
question
the particulars of the laws and practices of the situation. But it's
unwise to
forget why they're there.

Then we might as well all give up and let Big Daddy Government take over
and
tell us every move to make. Obviously, a father and a mother are too
ignorant, selfish, and immature to look out for the best interests of
their
own children, so *other* adults, who do not know the children, the
circumstances, or the situation are **far better able** to make any
necessary decisions than the stupid parents are. Why don't we just
change
the age af adulthood to, say, 90, rather than 18. And the instant a
child
is conceived he becomes a ward of the court--and the parents supply the
money--but only those who have passed some sort of government
standardized
test snd become mighty Government Workers make decisions about how the
child
is reared. Except for their own children, of course. A different
Gvoernment Worker is assigned to their case. All Hail the Mighty
Government. All Hail Big Brother. How would we survive without Him!!

More emotion and extremeism ... which doesn't get anyone
any closer to a workable solution, now does it?!

But you know what else doesn't get us any closer to a solution? Insisting
that PARENTS are so useless that they canno be trusted to act in the best
interests of their children!! Saying that some paid lackey can look at a
piece of paper and know better than the parents what the chuld needs. How
does that help anything, Paula? How does putting somebody else in carge of
your child's life help anything?


You are the one calling parents "scum", "ignorant", "selfish",
and "immature", teachrmama ... let's cut with the projection
and stick to the issues.

What I said was that *some* parents cannot see past
their own pain, anger, and frustration to get to the important
issues of what's best for their child(ren). These parents need
the intervention of the state to safeguard the child(ren).

Do all parents require intervention? Certainly not! Should
intervention be preemptive? Certainly not!

That "paid lackey" *should* be an unbiased, objective
perspective on the needs of the child(ren) -- which is
necessary when the parents can't see past themselves.

Do you really think that
parents *want* to make their kids miserable, Banty? Were you to
divorce,
would your husband go out of his way to make sure your child lived at
poverty level just to put a few extra dollars in his pocket or to make
you
miserable?

Again with argument that two parents with proven animosity toward each
other, or
at least insufficient cooperative relation to each other to get
together
to
actually raise the child (what a concept), and their pocketbooks at
stake
to
boot, are going to act with enlightened reasonableness and far sighted
wisdom.

And MIghty Government **always** acts with enlightened reasonableness and
far sighted wisdom. That's why the bidget is balanced, and tehe country
is
at peace.

I think, given the opportunity, the *vast majority* of parents could pull
it
off, Banty.

And I disagree. I think you need to remove those rose-colored
glasses and take a real look at the animosities between the
parents to whom you refer.

Perhaps the animosity comes, in part, from one parent being told "you're the
good one," and the other being told "you're the deadbeat." Then being
treated that way by the system.

Your situation is an extreme, as is mine. But if
you really think that the animosity that occurs when
a relationship breaks down is due to the system
holding bias toward one parent over the other, you
need to further educate yourself on the topic of
human behaviour and psychology because you
are WAY off the mark.

Then the system could work with only those that actually *need*
the system--which is why it was set up to begin with.

Which, IMHO, is a far greater percentage than you are
willing to acknowledge.

Oh, you will never get me to reinforce your feeling that most parents are
incapable of parenting their own children. What a sad, sad life you must
lead to believe such evil about others.

I never said that ... please STOP putting words in
my mouth. You speak for you, I'll speak for me,
and we'll get along just fine. I do not lead a "sad,
sad life" ... in addition to DD there are many, many
things that bring happiness and joy to my world ...
but I've also seen enough to know that there *is*
evil in the world and sometimes it's resident in
those wunnerful parents that you think will always
do the right thing by their child(ren) without having
to be told to do so.

And you stake the childhoods and well being of tens of thousands of
children on
that optimistic confidence of yours.

YOU stake the childhoods of tens of thousands of children on a cold
strangers following little numbers on a pices of paper withou regards to
the
real circumstances of a situation. Hmmmm...cold, uncaring government vs
loving parents......hmmmm...who would I want making choices for my
children....hmmmm.....

Some of those parents are cold and uncaring when it comes
to anything other than their own wants and needs ... hmmmm.

And you parlay those *some" into everyone needing to be controlled by the
system. Very, very sad.

More mind-reading and emotion. Ya know, up until now,
I always thought that you had your head on straight and
had just been screwed over by the system. I still think
that you've been screwed by the system ... but as for
the rest, I'm not so sure anymore.