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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |