Name change because parent not visiting child

"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?
Phil #3

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

Considering what you wrote about not caring about the fathers that
are
hurt
by the system, my wish for you is that you find yourself (or someone
you
love) in a situation where you have done nothing wrong, but you are
being
egregiously harmed because other people have done something wrong.
When
you
have actually experienced that which you are so casually dismissing
as
being
worth the price, then, perhaps, you can come back and share.

Care is a difficult term, it is not that I do not care for fathers
rights it is simply that an increase in father's rights at the expense
of the most at risk population of children is an EXTREMELY poor trade.

Why does there have to be a tradeoff? Why can't the rights of men be
protected without harming children? Do you really think it is fair
that
a
man is tricked into believing that he is a father, then forced to
continue
paying child support when it is proved that he is NOT the father? Do
you
really think it is fair that a woman can hide the fact that a man is a
father until years after the birth of the child, then go back and
demand
not
only current support, but arrearages for all the years the man did not
pay
when he was not aware of his fatherhood? Are these the unfairnesses
that
you feel should continue? If so, why?

We as a society have to decide what things are more important to
protect. Frankly the interests of the children are far more important
than the interests of adults who engaged in consentual activity that
resulted in the child. The only blameless one in this equation is the
child.


Then you better darn well find a way to make sure that money that is
paid
for the support of the child is used ONLY for the support of THAT CHILD.
I
could tell you horror stories about the way the monies have been spent
by
some--in 4 different states, so it's not just a single example. Make
sure
*the children* are actually receiving all they are due, or your system
is
useless.



He makes the classic socialist arguement that one select groups "right"
trump annother groups / individual's rights. Which of course, is
completely wrong.

Historically, the courts have ruled parental rights are favored over all
other rights including property rights. This gives parents the right to
make decisions for their children because the children's best interest is
directly tied to their parent's best interest..

To accept GW's arguments one has to believe property rights (money) are more
important the parental rights. And the children's best interest is
independent of their parent's rights.

This inverted policy thinking runs contrary to legal decisions and it is the
type of thinking socialists use to justify the state intruding into private
lives. Our system of family law encourages women to hand over their
parental rights to the state in exchange for the government providing
mother-friendly outcomes that place burdens on men and transfer money from
men to women.

As long as the burdens are asymmetrical in favor of women they will continue
to give power to the government to regulate their private lives and the
lives of their children.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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.

Here's some advice on how other mothers handle your dilemma:

Make the child get a job.

When CS stops, start charging the child rent.

Stop buying food they like so they eat out more.

Force the child to do more around the home - Turn them into unpaid
domestic
workers.

Tell them to buy their own clothes.

Ask the child to buy stuff for you and then never repay them.

As you can see, the free money subsidy doesn't "magically stop when they
hit
their 18th birthday." The trick is to turn previous expenses into an
income
source. Just talk to some other former CP mothers. They can give you
lots
of hints on how to turn your children into money generating assets.

If you want to follow that "advice", go for it. Personally, I think your
advice sucks, and have no intention of treating ANYONE that way, much less
my children.

"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.

Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length


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.

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.

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.

You forgot to read this paragraph:

" 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."



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.

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to do
so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?


Possibly because the money comes from a third individual ostensibly to be
spent in support of the children only.

A third individual? Funny, I could have sworn it was money coming from one
(or the other) of the parents of the child.


I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another, with
all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say
that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important to/for
the child?

Correction: the money is being spent on the child AND the CP, which is the
point you seem to be missing.

So let me get this straight - a parent who gets CS can't ever spend ANY
money on themselves, for fear of being accused of using CS money for
themselves?

Gee, I have a full time job, and support my children, and yes, I even spend
some of that money on me.

That's what working people get to do - use some of their discretionary
income on themselves.



Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have to
make the decisions.

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.

Only a few MILLION each year. Petty. Not worth mentioning. :^

If you say so. Got any cites for that "few MILLION" though?


Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making process
as divorced parents do.

And for those, would that not be those cases where TM and others agree it
would not work. Forcing parents into the socialist ideal of utopian family
life is not freedom, justice or sane.



"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the system
on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't work
in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the bit
to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in time or
in money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that all
parents, 100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense
obligations just doesn't seem to address this reality.

Oh ****! Could you lack any more abilty to think in logical terms?

Personal attacks pretty much rid you of any credibility. Have a lovely day.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

nsnippage


That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children does
not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

Well, if that's true, then NCP fathers wanting the best for their
children
doesn't necessarily translate into them doing so, either.

So what do you suggest, to make sure that the best for the children is
actually done?

And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please
explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one
thin dime.

TANF. Free daycare.

That provides a free home? Or only to those people who are below poverty
level?



Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending
one
thin dime.

Food Stamps. WIC. Food Banks. School breakfast and lunch programs.
(Some
fo these programs allow mothers and below school aged children to
accompany
their school aged children to eat breakfast at school.)

As long as you're within the poverty level guidelines. The rest of us have
to pay for it.
So far, you can only raise a kid for free if you already don't have
anything.

Cept for that pesky housing thing..... TANF and free day care don't provide
a free home.


Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.

State Health Plan. Refuge Medical Programs.

Again, only if you fall in the poverty guidelines.


Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.

Hand-me-downs. Church and other support group programs.

Is that guaranteed?

And are all of these freebies going to be available for just anyone? Or
golly gosh gee whiz, only for those who already don't have anything and fall
within the poverty guidelines.

Chris has asserted that ANYONE can raise a child without spending one thin
dime. Of course, I don't see that he's actually answered yet.

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in


And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please
explain how you can provide each of these needs for the children without
spending one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one thin dime.

Children's share is less than 5% of your total cost that you have to pay
anyway!

That makes it free?


Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending
one thin dime.

Cooking for one or 3, minimal difference!

Never fed a teenage boy, have you!


Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.

Payed by Employer!

Nice try - at best, the employer will cover the employee - the employee has
to pay to have the additional coverage for the children.



Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.

How may pairs of jeans can you buy in one month? Ever hear the word no?

You want them to go naked?


Electricity and heating - please explain how you provide these utilities
for children without spending one thin dime.

Don't be rediculous, you would be paying this regardless if you had
children or not!

Clearly, you've never had teenagers... or perhaps you've always lived alone.
The question posed to Chris was how to do this "WITHOUT SPENDING ONE THIN
DIME", as he keeps insisting is possible.

And, once again, I see that Chris continues to not answer.

What a surprise.


Educational materials - please explain how you provide education
materials (things like paper, pens or pencils, etc) for children without
spending one thin dime.

Note books & binders, give them $20 bucks, the rest is on them.

Thank you - I'm sure an awful lot of cash-strapped parents will
appreciate you explaining how this can be done, so we can all start
saving some money - after all, the same concepts should work as well for
adults as children, no?

Hmmm, my father supported 3 kids on one blue collar wage, what's your
problem?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length


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.

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.

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.

You forgot to read this paragraph:

" 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."



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.

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually
spending the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required
to do so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?


Possibly because the money comes from a third individual ostensibly
to be spent in support of the children only.

A third individual? Funny, I could have sworn it was money coming
from one (or the other) of the parents of the child.


Don't act juvenile.
Your habit of trying to mislead or muddy the water isn't working.


I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another,
with all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe
to say that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child -
and weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is
important to/for the child?

Correction: the money is being spent on the child AND the CP, which
is the point you seem to be missing.

So let me get this straight - a parent who gets CS can't ever spend
ANY money on themselves, for fear of being accused of using CS money
for themselves?

Hell no. It's done all over the US every day without fear because it is
LEGAL to steal from one's children in that way.


Gee, I have a full time job, and support my children, and yes, I even
spend some of that money on me.

Surprise!!!! This IS NOT specifically about YOU.


That's what working people get to do - use some of their discretionary
income on themselves.

Correct, for a CP, C$ is discretionary income.




Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the
decision making process, then it does sort of fall on the other
parent to have to make the decisions.

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making
process.

Only a few MILLION each year. Petty. Not worth mentioning. :^

If you say so. Got any cites for that "few MILLION" though?

Don't intentionally act stupid. If you're so silly as to now know this,
you should limit your activities to reading instead of posting.



Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the
other parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the
same proportions on married parents default out of the decision
making process as divorced parents do.

And for those, would that not be those cases where TM and others
agree it would not work. Forcing parents into the socialist ideal of
utopian family life is not freedom, justice or sane.



"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it
on their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing
the system on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't
work in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing
at the bit to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children,
either in time or in money. It's just not reality. So your
starting point that all parents, 100% of them, should start with
joint custody/care/expense obligations just doesn't seem to address
this reality.

Oh ****! Could you lack any more abilty to think in logical terms?

Personal attacks pretty much rid you of any credibility. Have a
lovely day.


I didn't attack you, I simply called you on your lack of logical
thought. A fact is not an attack if it's a fact, which in this case, it
is.
I have a lovely day every day now that I no longer have to send part of
my paycheck to a leech to use for personal wants.
Phil #3

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"P.Fritz" wrote in

He makes the classic socialist arguement that one select groups
"right" trump annother groups / individual's rights. Which of
course, is completely wrong.

I guess it's OK with him and others of his Ilk that I should be
deported because I can't come up with $55,000. I have to lose my job,
my home and friends & family because this greedy bitch can't see past
the $$$ that the Friends of the court have promised her. She was
receiving $800/mth until immigration revoked my authorization to work
in this country. Nobody said these people were smart!


Actually, as a father, you are considered expendable in this feministic
(read: socialist) society. To quote Carey Roberts:
When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody
is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the
problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what
better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?
.... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once
admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from
the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions,
national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest
defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to
marginalize males by any means possible. --
Phil #3

"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.

Minimal support does not to that in my opinion. YMMV, of course.

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

We realize what limits are placed on CPs and what responsibilities are
placed on NCPs that far supercede that placed on the CPs.
My children love me and all, including the one that is nearing middle
age, call frequently for a visit or advice; I can't say the same about
their feelings for their mother who shared their C$ as if it was solely
for her use.
Sadly, it is your children that deserve pity. They'll never know how
sentient and responsible adults should act.
Phil #3