"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
Bob Whiteside wrote:

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

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
glegroups.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.

Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the
fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into
poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their
wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the
total, a very small percentage.

The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of
those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be
pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good
fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the
small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on
the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system.

I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out
of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I
can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they
are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of
anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was
blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse
of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification.

Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data
maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information
please share.


See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html

There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together
into
the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from
social
workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income"
but
the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so
many
cases with missing data on income factors.

What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect
occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases
CS
does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public
money
benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the
public
money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same
amount of welfare benefits.

A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The
average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month.
Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public
money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not
going to
change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty
is
when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the
amount
over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table
4.




A very few foster parents abuse the kids, The fact that the system
needs to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible
is not because good foster parenmts should be penalized, its that not
enough resources exist to weed the good foster parents from the bad and
that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad
foster parents to abuse the kids and being overly harsh on
the good good foster parents, I freely and willing choice the harsh
system.

I like it. Substitute "single-parent mothers" for "foster parents" and you
have another way of solving a lot more problems.