Name change because parent not visiting child

P Fritz wrote:
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.

LOL, I know it was meant to be an attack but you dont know how right
you are.

The foster system is a lot like the child support system, the only
difference is that everyone enters by their own choice and the state
pays you rather than the other way around. It took me and my wife a
year to get licenced, and my file is about two inches thick, an inch or
so that I wrote myself. I was required to have a psycological
evaluation, multiple references, and full FBI background check. I have
had birth parents make accusations of abuse against me for every bump
and bruise that their 3yo gets while in my care. Each accusation is a
mandatory investigation from CPS, so between that and fact that I have
had 21 placements I know most of the staff of CPS on a first name
basis. My house can be visited at any time without warning or
explaination, they can request my credit and bank history at anytime
without warning or explaination. Judges make decisions that seem to
appear out of their asses without concern for the actually situation
the child is in. Decent parents are kept away from their kids while
the dumbasses get custody returned. The social workers believe the
kids to the point that you just want to scream "The kid's manipulating
you, ****wit!!"

And I continue to do this and support the system even while believing
the system needs a ton of work. Of course the $0.50/hour must be the
reason since you would never believe that I actually might be consitant
in my thinking and actions.

Ghostwriter

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated
male
living in the household with the mother.

In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt
really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so.
It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally
different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter

CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
wrote:
Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia.

My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt
want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the
world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem
with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing
affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this
person who shares his last name. It's just sad.

Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be
best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he doesnt
really seem to care.

I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient
reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would be
very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont necessarily
need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer.

If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he
wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have
nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his son.

Ghostwriter


The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she
doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't
imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if he's
not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So
if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father
child-support services shill, then let's go...

Alright lets go,

I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling
a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took
your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP.

My ex's face, no. Experiences, most certainly.
I'm from a divorced family and also went through the family court
system as an adult in a different state than I currently reside.
Over the past few decades I have operated several family owned
businesses and have seen well over a thousand employees come and go.
Some of the employees were in high school, most in college or
older, and collectively with a wide range of family situations.
I would hear family issues personally or through management
of just about anything you can imagine.


My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to
wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers
them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments.
Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME
OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for
a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he
wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother
getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag,
THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

If the child's last name was causing a lot of teasing at school or
something then I could see the child being upset. However, if the child
was inquiring why his name is different then I'm very sure most mom's
could explain it in a way that the child wouldn't feel traumatized.
We both don't really know for sure what the mother's real intentions
are. But if I were to read her like a poker hand, it would be that
she is upset that the father doesn't visit and wants to get his
attention,
punish him for it, or a little of both. She also indicated her and the
father get along for the most part and you know the relationship could
easily be damaged. Maybe you think she should thank you for your prison
guard approach?

I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories
of
sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to
tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far
too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good
fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get
to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my
door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS,
they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior
to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into
poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their
child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather
than in my care.

It's just plain wrong to punish all fathers because of the horrible
acts of a few. Your logic is sick and twisted.

Interesting but the consequences of easing the current system would be
that those children near poverty would be pushed over the edge. Thats
the simple truth, you advocate a position that would likley cause the
neglect, physical and sexual abuse of at risk children and you have the
balls to say my logic is twisted.

So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation
with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching.

Yes I could tell a 10 year old girl that the entire world shouldn't
have
be punished because of the terrible acts committed against her by her
daddy. I had a similar conversation several years back with a few
college
girls. One went on to live a very happy and normal life, the others
still struggle with it a bit.

I respect that (regardless if you care about my respect) it shows a
conistancy that most people lack. The next level of that question is
if you were faced with a child who was molested after your policies
forced her and her mother into poverty.

If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is
that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it
that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the
failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end
up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown.

Please by all means punish the actual abusers.

Hence my position that fathers rights must be coupled with social
services/enforcement.

That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could
be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few
months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father.

ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN
SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY
WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL.

Before the system was invented, broken homes were rare. Now
the more money the system gets, the bigger the problem gets. The
system needs fixing not the majority of fathers.

Correlation is not causation. Prior to the systems invention birth
control, woman's rights, high average education levels, minority
rights, etc simply didnt exist. Its a huge jump to say that the child
support isnt just a symptom of the larger problems. Frankly IMHO the
problem is greed and the inability to surrender your personal desires,
selfish revenge and greed certainly seem to be both the cause of the
problems in most families and the cause of most problems in divorces.
And selfishness and greed outdate child support by thousands of years.

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.

Did it ever occur to you that many children grow-up fatherless
because daddy was beaten down by government? It's time once again
to allow good fathers to be fathers.

Children grew up fatherless before government was invented, and yes I
can see that a portion of fathers are becoming resentful and opting out
of being fathers because of the system. Of course any father that
walks out because of what someone other than the kids did to him, might
qualify as a average father but good doesnt seem to be the right word.

Ghostwriter

PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st
foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life
and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I
am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases.

Best wishes to you and your family.

P.S. My comment about the mother asking for the name change
as an admission of her not wanting the father involved in
the childs life...it wasn't an attack on her, it was on you.

I missed it completely, I assumed you were just trying to button hole
my arguements which hardly qualifies as an attack. The OP stated that
father wasnt invovled, so the name change was more a official
recognition of an existing situation. But that would have required you
to have believed her, which as I stated before was a extremely unlikley
event.

Ghostwriter

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated
male
living in the household with the mother.

In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt
really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so.
It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally
different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about
Stalin, then read it again.

As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian
means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the
worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of
the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is
the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black
and white worldview.

Ghostwriter

P Fritz wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male
living in the household with the mother.


In our society money=options,

BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist

money = incentive of more of the same

Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly
doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the
kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is
specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT
society) pay for the needs of the children.

I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on
both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of
where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to
abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true
socialism or libertarianism.

Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a
problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being
forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were
invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on
husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more
concerned about protecting their children than they are about money.
Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however.

Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into
single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the
richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor
the idea is laughable.

Ghostwriter



a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.




I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

Ghostwriter

teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.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.

The point of arrears and false paternity are good ones, and courts
should take them into account but compared to the interests of the
child they are small potatoes. Laws have started to appear the
recognize the rights of stepparents and grandparents, and with them
come the unwillingness to allow non-bio men who have acted as fathers
to simple exit the picture, even when they were acting as fathers under
false pretense. The stupidity of the mother does not annul the child
rights, and that applies to arrears and all the rest of it.

I personally favor joint custody, with obligation to meet costs based
on the relative income of the individuals. But my disapproval with the
systems failures does not extend to dismantling it without a clear idea
of what is going to take its place, and so far nothing seems to be put
forward other than libertarian pipe-dreams.

I would wish for you to work with some victimized children, then come
back and tell us if you getting rid of your obligations is worth their
fathers escaping their's.

Well, Ghostwriter, you have your wish. I have worked with such children.
And still do. This year I have 2 such children in my classroom. I don't
think that money is going to solve the problems. I think that only
education is going to do that. Not the education of the children in
school--although that is also important. But the education of the mothers
who are making choices that are not necessarily good for their children.
Help the mothers help themselves--don't just throw money at them and see
that as a solution. I could tell you stories about what I have seen that
would curl your eyebrows. And I don;t think that money has ever been the
solution. Neither is taking away the rights of the innocent. I do not
think you have thought this through thoroughly enough.

Everyone's rights exist in competition with everyones elses, nothing is
going to change that. Like I have been saying the whole time fathers
rights must be coupled with social services or else you will see an
increased rate of families failing. Thats not about guilt or innocence
its about placing value on those kids.

I dont doubt that we are both capable of telling stories that would the
other sick. But money would certainly get those 2 kids of yours in to
see a doctor, therapist, counciler, etc. Money would mean Mom would be
at work less and be more able to supervise and assist in that therapy.
Money might enable Mom to finish a degree and purchase housing in a
better neighborhood. No money isnt a cure-all but it does open options
that dont exist otherwise. And yes money might just allow Mom to buy
drugs for herself and the abusive boyfriend.

Education is always a wonderful idea, parenting education for high
schoolers, optional education for new parents, court ordered education
for people seeking divorce, court ordered education for both parties
post divorce would be a great start.


Ghostwriter



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

CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
wrote:
Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia.

My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just
doesnt
want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the
world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a
problem
with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name
thing
affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this
person who shares his last name. It's just sad.

Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be
best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he
doesnt
really seem to care.

I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient
reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would
be
very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont
necessarily
need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer.

If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he
wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have
nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his
son.

Ghostwriter


The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she
doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't
imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if
he's
not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So
if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father
child-support services shill, then let's go...

Alright lets go,

I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling
a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took
your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP.

My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to
wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers
them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments.
Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME
OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for
a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he
wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother
getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag,
THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories of
sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to
tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far
too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good
fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get
to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my
door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS,
they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior
to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into
poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their
child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather
than in my care.

So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation
with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching.
If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is
that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it
that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the
failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end
up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown.

That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could
be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few
months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father.

ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN
SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY
WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL.

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

PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st
foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life
and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I
am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases.

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

P Fritz wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated
male
living in the household with the mother.


In our society money=options,

BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist

money = incentive of more of the same

Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly
doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the
kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is
specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT
society) pay for the needs of the children.

This opinion is not based on facts or reality.

The current CS system has its origin in old Soviet Russian Law and is
modeled after how the Soviet Communist/Socialists handled family law
matters. It is just not intellectually honest to say a system that is based
on class warfare between the genders and redistribution of wealth is somehow
not a socialist program.


I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on
both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of
where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to
abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true
socialism or libertarianism.

How about offering some proof to back up this statement?


Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a
problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being
forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were
invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on
husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more
concerned about protecting their children than they are about money.
Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however.

That's not what the research shows. Check out Maragret Brinig's
quantification of family law issues with economic data. She concluded the
assurance of getting child custody (an emotional motivator) and the
predictability of child support amounts (a financial motivator) are the two
factors women rely on to breakup their realtionships and force men out of
their children's lives.


Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into
single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the
richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor
the idea is laughable.

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.

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids
with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an
unrelated male
living in the household with the mother.

In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result
of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers,
and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The
arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt
really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about
child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so.
It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally
different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are
getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?

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.

I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work.

Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin with,
IMO.

The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard.

Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to
support their children but when they are removed by force and prevented
from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with relative
accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents not
fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large part
results from the problem.

Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade.

It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the children's
needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything at
all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest, which
many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used for
or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according to
the rules.

Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that.

Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the court
to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children?
This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate
(court order), have the ability to spend less than the official
guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the
children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in any
state.

Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst.
And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose to
fully support their families, including children, without court orders.
By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP, equality
reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of
children raised without a father present in the home develop behavorial
problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are from
single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from
fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households,
single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute 59%.
The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely to be
in juvenile prisons than children of single father households. Children
of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of two
parent households to be in juvenile prisons.



I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the
situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the
fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Apparently not.
Phil #3


Ghostwriter

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more
money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing
kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an
unrelated
male
living in the household with the mother.

In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a
result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with
fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The
arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children
doesnt
really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about
child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that
the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more
options.

No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do
so.
It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally
different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are
getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can
see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any
alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I
have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I
can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no
the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have
to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will
never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be
coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation
and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum
will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of
both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the
situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care
of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the
fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's
NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and
damning
choice in the long run.

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about
Stalin, then read it again.

As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian
means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the
worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of
the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is
the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black
and white worldview.

Ghostwriter


It doesn't matter *how many* believe a lie, it remains a lie.
Phil #3

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

P Fritz wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

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.



You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money"
will
reduce abusive boyfriends.

Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with
their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated
male
living in the household with the mother.


In our society money=options,

BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist

money = incentive of more of the same

Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly
doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the
kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is
specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT
society) pay for the needs of the children.

This opinion is not based on facts or reality.

The current CS system has its origin in old Soviet Russian Law and is
modeled after how the Soviet Communist/Socialists handled family law
matters. It is just not intellectually honest to say a system that is based
on class warfare between the genders and redistribution of wealth is somehow
not a socialist program.

Child support laws are based on English poor laws that pre-date the
soviets by centurys. Thus the fact that we are one of the only
countries in the world that seize child support to repay welfare. The
orginal formulas were taken from the Soviets. Thats about as socialist
as orgainized labor, argueable but not really true.

http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...istory_usa.htm

Apparently about a third of states still use modified versions of the
soviet standards, the other two thirds use versions of williams model,
most are currently modeled on European countries like Sweden that take
into account entitlements like welfare. Thus a composite system.

I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on
both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of
where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to
abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true
socialism or libertarianism.

How about offering some proof to back up this statement?

The failings of true socialism I suspect we can agree on, as far as
libertarianism the fact that no nation has ever been stupid enough to
allow such an abomination speaks volumes. The closest example available
would be the gilded age in the US. Twain wrote rather elequently about
the abuses of that paticular time.

Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a
problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being
forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were
invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on
husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more
concerned about protecting their children than they are about money.
Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however.

That's not what the research shows. Check out Maragret Brinig's
quantification of family law issues with economic data. She concluded the
assurance of getting child custody (an emotional motivator) and the
predictability of child support amounts (a financial motivator) are the two
factors women rely on to breakup their realtionships and force men out of
their children's lives.

Interesting I havent found the study you are talking about is it one of
these.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/A...m?per_id=53766

Everything I read in "These boots are made for walking" seems to
indicate that custody is the primary determining factor but that the
precence of children significantly decreases the chances a woman will
file for divorce. Joint custody has almost no impact but if a woman
assumes that her husband will get the kids she will almost never file,
despite the fact the men are seldom if ever awared child support. That
sort of supports your argument but only in the sense that the
availablity of child support compensates for the other negative aspects
of divorce. She makes some interesting points about quasi-rents that
would suggest that women filing in the middle years of a marriage
almost always do so to escape a bad marriage, not because of a
perception of being financially better off. Coupled with the statistics
she quotes on the damage divorce does to a woman's finances and the
damage it does to children, her quai-rent theory would strongly suggest
that child support is an enabler but only if the situation is already
bad.

More likley is that custody is the primary determining factor and that
child support is intended to allow a woman to continue the quasi-rents
that are necessary for the raising of children.

Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into
single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the
richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor
the idea is laughable.

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.

No we pay because if we dont those kids will be born anyway and will
become the next crop of felons. We pay because during the depression
kids starved. And we pay because enough of us are intelligent enough to
realize that getting kids out of poverty will make us far more than it
costs us in the long run.

Ghostwriter