A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Name change because parent not visiting child



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old November 22nd 06, 11:59 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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


That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a
village".



Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint.

So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal
responsibility.

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie

And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs.
Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers
responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid
personal responsibility.


ROFLMAO!

standing ovation

Ghostwriter



  #192  
Old November 22nd 06, 11:59 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Dale" wrote in message
. net...

"ghostwriter" wrote in

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie


Excellent advice for all women!


And men.





  #193  
Old November 22nd 06, 12:01 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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


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

And well more than 18 years of bills.

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

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

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

Phil #3


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

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

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

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


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


Perhaps you think that laws only come from divorce decrees?


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



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


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



  #194  
Old November 22nd 06, 02:46 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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


That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a
village".



Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint.

So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal
responsibility.

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.


So you're in favor of banning abortion, unilateral adoption and legal
abandonment or are you simply parroting the feminist chant?

Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.


Applicable to both parents.


Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information.


When the outcome is nearly guaranteed to favor the mother, what impetus
does she have to "come to an agreement" since she can hardly lose?

And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.


Sexual responsiblity somehow makes a marriage work?
Not sure I follow whatever line you are casting but nonetheless, it only
takes ONE to make a divorce and primarily it is the wife that is most
likely to do so. Not because of abuse, unfaithfulness or any of the many
other reasons given by feminsts but for reasons that touch on emotion,
like "not in touch with my feelings" and such nonsense.
So when you attempt to chastise men for failing to make their marriage
work, you should be chastising women for taking the easy way out instead
of making it work.


Bed, Made, Lie

And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that
Mrs.
Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers
responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid
personal responsibility.


It does NOT take a village. It takes two parents. The idea that parents
should not jointly raise children is a recent invention and judging by
current society, it isn't a good one.
Somehow I cannot imagine you'd hold women to the same standards that you
suppose men should follow.
Phil #3


Ghostwriter



  #195  
Old November 22nd 06, 02:50 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
. net...

"ghostwriter" wrote in

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie


Excellent advice for all women!


And men.


I believe he was referring to the SOLE choice to create children.








  #196  
Old November 22nd 06, 02:55 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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


That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes
a
village".



Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint.

So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal
responsibility.

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life
with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time
with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when
those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie

And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that
Mrs.
Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers
responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid
personal responsibility.


ROFLMAO!


Ok, Moonie, just one point. Are you in favor of holding women to this
same standard even though it would mean accepting responsibility for any
unplanned pregnancy thereby outlawing abortion, abandonment and
unilateral adoption AND the ability to keep the children along with the
promise of C$ as income?
Phil #3


standing ovation

Ghostwriter



  #197  
Old November 22nd 06, 04:23 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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


Why on earth do you think it is ok to subject private individuals to such
government interference when no crime has been committed? For the life
of
me, I can't fathom why you think someone doing a "job" is better at
taking
care of the children than the parents of the children. Do you also think
there should be these social workers out inspecting the homes of married
parents? You seem to have a very deep-seated distrust of people--except
people who represent the government. There should be no interference at
all
unless one or both of the parents are operating outside of the law.
Period.


A civil action, like say a contested divorce, is basically an
individual asking for a court to decide whos rights have higher
priority in any given situation. The idea of a CASA pre-supposes the
fact that a civil action has already been filed. At that point someone
has already asked a judge to step in and make a decision, inside of the
adverseral, only the lawyers make out civil system that exists in this
country. Everyone is screaming that you want non-adverseral, informed
decisionmaking, and everyone including me agrees that the parents are
the first people that SHOULD be making those decisions. The court
system will almost always agree to any divorce/child support settlement
that the parents mutually agree on. The problem is that at least one
parent is asking for government intervention because the parents HAVE
NOT been able to reach a decision point.


The problem is that the current system is set up in such a way that WOMEN
WIN the majority of the time. They are almost guaranteed custody of the
children. So if they don't get exactly what they want from the men, they
can run to court and get it from the judge. Make the system equal for both
genders--no favoritism--and see how quickly the "fix it for me, judge"
attitude falls off. You'd see a lot more people working things out
themselves.


A lot of arguement as to why
that is revolve around the fact that the CP wants to milk and
unreasonable amount of money out of the NCP. The CASA is a method that
allows for informed decisionmaking without conflict of interest,
something that is absent in any contested custody or divorce situation
currently.


Making the playing field equal would do exactly the same thing, without the
need for a CASA.

The CASA simple replaces the judge in the majority of cases
very similar to the medical communities heavy use of nurses to assist
doctors. Selection of the CASA by elimination would allow for both
sides to be reasonably represented without the conflict of interest
that arises when a lawyer is payed to represent your interests while
the court is seeking the best interests of the child.

The fact that the children you come in contact with represent the segment
of
society that might need supervision does not in any way indicate that all
divorced/never-married couples need such superbvision. It is unfair to
tar
everyone with the brush of you negative experiences.


A constested situation exists with massive potential conflict of
interests, where at least one participant has REQUESTED government
intervention, the potential damage to society is large, exactly when
would you say intervention is necessary?


When the playing field is level, and they STILL can't agree.


You want the CP to be
constantly anwserable to the NCP on expendatures but I imagine that
your not so interested in giving the CP access to the NCP's
income/spending information. Conflicts of interests like that are the
reasons that the system is so damn cumbersome.


The CP already has that access. NCPs file income reports with the court
regularly. Plus the courts have total acxcess to employment and tax info.
Why don't you already know that? Besides which, I think that each parent
should be responsible for 50% of the child's basic needs. And anything they
want to do above and beyond that is a choice that each gets to make for
him/herself.



A level playing field, thats a little vague dont you think. Enforced
equality on a finanicial level would be extremely destructive given
that women with children almost always have lower earning potential.
Pre-supposing joint custody is a good idea, with lower child support to
reflect the quasi-rents that the father will provide. That has been
shown to lower divorce rates considerably.

The basic needs arguement is your strongest point, the problem that I
can see is that basic needs are a very loosely defined criteria. Paying
the CP enough so that if they work like mad they can afford a small
apartment, basic food, and the basic clothing needs of a child. Even if
they are never able to advance or prepare for retirement or all of the
other things that would have been possible inside of a married life.
That isnt anywhere near as bad as allowing the fathers to determine the
exact level of support they will pay. Even if Mom and child live in a
cheap apartment while Dad's new family lives in a large home, I dont
like the
inequality but inequality exists in reality. Certainly that is nowhere
near the situations that I face with foster kids birthfamilies.

And I can see that a equlibrium could exist between allowing a
reasonable ablity for the CP to improve their lifes with allowing the
NCP that same ability. Although given the return on investment society
sees for educated/experienced children I still tend to favor the CP in
that reguard, but nowhere near as strongly as for the basic needs
arguement. This is defineately a situation were joint custody would be
preferable.

A judge has almost no information when they are making the decisions,
thats the reason a CASA type system appeals to me. Informaiton and
common sense would solve most of the problems that currently exist. But
the harsh assumptions have to remain until more information becomes
available, the potential cost is simply too high.

I think however we may have reached a reasonable solution, at least in
my mind. A franken-system with liberal, populist, and libertarian
aspects

We both agree that law cannot be substituted for human judgment, and we
both agree that the parents are the best people to exercise that
judgement, but we disagree on the level of conflict of interest that
should be assumed in a NCP. As I understand your arguments you wish
the fundemental assumption to be that an average NCP will possess
little conflict of interest, so that even when the parents are unable
to agree the court should mandate a bare minimum of child support to
insure a child's basic needs and then allow the parents to work out any
remaining inequality. Its quite a reasonable solution and certainly
addresses my major concerns of child safety and family failure. Making
the minimum a hard and fast number would force a lot of people to sell
houses and/or declare bankrupcy but that doesnt really upset me half as
much as true impoverishing. Give the judge the power to freeze
collection of debts until the situation was decided. A hard number
would also give the sytem the ability to truly destroy the real
deadbeat dads.

Its a composite system by the way between populist and libertarian
solutions (there's a combination that doesnt happen often). I could
still very easily see the mild horror stories of mothers fighting to
pay the bills when dad lives in luxury but compared to the flip side
stories that happen today I can certainly live with that.

I would suggest a further composite to address those situations where
the conflict of interest is larger, add a liberal education requirement
that both parties attend classes/counciling where that inequality can
be worked out for their specific situation, including how the split
will change as incomes change or emergencies arise, place a strong
emphasis on allowing the parents to exercise judgment, but set up a
minimum framework. Take a portion of the NCP's pay and place it in
eschrow to be divided after the drafting of a binding agreement, thus
giving both parties a strong incentive to come to an agreement. Place
a CASA type as the teacher/counciler and give them the right to draft
the agreement if the parties cannot agree. And of course allow review
of the agreement at the request of either party. All collections of
payments would be by a private company, a bank most likley, that would
oversee any changes to the payment levels based on perodic review and
recommendation of the CASA, subject to the agreement.
..

Ghostwriter

  #198  
Old November 22nd 06, 04:31 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 387
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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


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

And well more than 18 years of bills.

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

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

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

Phil #3


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

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

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

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

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


Perhaps you think that laws only come from divorce decrees?


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


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

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

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




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


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





  #199  
Old November 22nd 06, 04:37 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"teachrmama" wrote in

So you want the arrears to continue to grow and grow and grow while the
person is laid off? Sounds great--leave 'em with a debt they can't get
out from under when they finally get work again. And if they get a lower
paying jop, do the arrearas continue to grow because, no matter what, the
children are owed a certain lifestyle?


As far as I'm concerned, the arrearages can grow until the cows comes home,
$55,000 might as well be $550,000, they can only garnish so much of my small
wage.

Sooner or later, CP's have to realize that no court, judge or lawyer can
help them if the NCP can't earn a living. The power struggle will end when
NCP's no longer bow to the whim of this pathetic court system.
Wouldn't be too hard to bust the present penal system, it's already
understaffed and over crowded.

Take their power away, stop playing their game!


  #200  
Old November 22nd 06, 04:43 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Dale
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 95
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in

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


Still here for the entertainment are we?

SO what problems do you personally have today than we can discuss?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 11:12 PM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.