"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they
have, the more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more
they make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support
their single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years
of tax free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own
costs is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I
know is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to
educational expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental
insurance to medical and dental expenses has risen steadily
between their infancy and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever
seen situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are
not acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is
BY YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've
treated your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a
*choice* to provide more than that. You are only *legally
required* to provide the minimum. Your choice to provide more does
not change the legal requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" -
certainly none that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my
state, nor spelled out in my divorce.

Perhaps you think that laws only come from divorce decrees?

When you are discussing the difference between what a divorced parent
is "legally required" to provide for their child, as opposed to what a
married parent is "legally required" to provide for their child, what
would you suggest as an appropriate area to look? Traffic laws?


Criminal law. Abuse and neglect, to be specific.
Here, I'll help you.
Oklahoma Public research system:§10-7102
"1. "Abuse" means harm or threatened harm to a child's health or safety
by a person responsible for the child's health or safety including
sexual abuse and sexual exploitation;
2. "Harm or threatened harm to a child's health or safety" includes,
but is not limited to:
a. nonaccidental physical or mental injury,
b. sexual abuse,
c. sexual exploitation,
d. neglect, or
e. failure or omission to provide protection from harm or threatened
harm;
3. "Neglect" means failure or omission to provide:
a. adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and supervision,
or
b. special care made necessary by the physical or mental condition of
the child;"
The question then becomes, what is *adequate* food, clothing, shelter,
medical care and supervision.., which is partially answered in §10-7106,
which in the end state that it's a judgment call by DHS. It is better
outlined in §63-1-820.14 in dealing with foster homes: ""Neglect" means
failure to provide goods and/or services necessary
to avoid physical harm, mental anguish, or mental illness;"

Further:
The Oklahoma State University Cooperative Extension unit, Kids Today:
http://www.fcs.okstate.edu/parenting.../KT_02-02.html
Oklahoma reported 11,224 confirmed cases of child neglect in the fiscal
year 2000. This neglect of children's needs, especially the need for
character education, can be attributed to the breakdown of family
support systems. This can be caused by economics, mobility, isolation,
television replacing family time, substance addiction and inappropriate
role models.

The penalty for neglect is a felony *but* must be malicious, not just
neglegent:
§10-7115
Any parent or other person who shall willfully or maliciously engage
in child abuse or neglect or who shall otherwise willfully or
maliciously injure, torture, maim, use unreasonable force upon a
child
under the age of eighteen (18), or sexually abuse, sexually exploit
or
otherwise abuse or neglect such child, or who shall willfully or
maliciously cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done,
shall upon conviction be guilty of a felony and punished by
imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding life
imprisonment, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one
(1) year, or by a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars
($500.00)
nor more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both such fine
and
imprisonment.
Phil #3




On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who
was calculating how much support to provide to their children based
on some "legal minimum requirement"


That's what I'm trying to get you to see. The law states that CPs
must provide the basic legal minimum requirement. That's it!
Phil #3