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
  #251  
Old December 12th 06, 12:07 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

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

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the

situation
of child-support.
==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to

spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the

*mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.

Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.


You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the

facts.

There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights

of
both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents

have
done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled

by
no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only

one
parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the

family.
This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on

the
child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the

parents.




No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the
financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of

the
child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to

define
and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who

have
done nothing to forfeit their rights.


The reality of the situation is that someone has to make the decisions,
and those decisions cannot be nit-picked without creating a massive
overload of the system and a huge cost. The idea that both parents
should make all decisions works great in a functional marriage and even
in a divorce between mature adults. It doesnt work in a situation where
the two "adults" cant speak without arguing. The rights of the parents
cancel each other out, so the rights of the child become the only
reasonable standard.


Academic studies consistently show 2/3 to 3/4 of all divorces are the
unilateral decision made by women. In cases where children are involved
studies have documented over 90% of divorce decisions are made by mothers.
The point you don't seem to want to acknowledge is women are the ones making
the decisions about ending relationships not the courts. Just claiming the
rights of parents cancel each other out does not make it a fact. The
divorce regime is set up to allow women and government to act in collusion
to prevent the rights of fathers from being heard.


When the two people that are charged with safeguarding the child's
interest fail to do so, the heavy hand of the state ends up having to
prevent the situation from going straight to hell.


It's just the opposite from what you claim. The state makes the situation
go straight to hell. The more marriages the state can tear apart the more
power and money the state generates.


The idea of that child support is somehow causing divorce is not
supported by any statistics I have seen. CUSTODY has a huge impact on
divorce rates, but divorced CPs have the worst average financial
situations of any demographic. The threat of poverty has a significant
effect on making people stay in failed marriages, but the presence of
child-support has no effect on causing people to leave otherwise good
marriages. It isnt a positive motivator but does lessen a negative
one.


Once again your claims do not match the facts. You are using the statistics
about never married mothers to describe the financial situations of divorced
mothers. The issue of poverty is very real for never married mothers
because they typically come from the lower socio-economic strata of the
population. Divorced mothers are just as well off post-divorce as being
married. In some instances they are better off financially post-divorce.


The major issue I think you have is that child-support might cause
someone to leave a salvageable marriage, the negative consequence of
poverty being at least somewhat lessened. It is possible you are
saying that you want the father to be able to bankrupt his wife so that
she wont take the kids, but I doubt that is what you are going for.


My point continues to be the predictablility of the divorce outcomes of
mother custody and guranteed CS money, encourage women to bail out of
marriages (or not get married) because they offer women emotional and
financial payoffs. If the outcomes for those two major factors were in
question just about every marriage would be described as "salvageable." I
believe the "best interests of the children" is for them to live in a
two-parent biological family. That's where children do best in every
measurable category concerning child development.


I dont necessarily disagee with that position but that situation needs
solved long before the child-support stage. Its about teaching maturity
to kids before they become parents, not forcing kids to do without
because the parents are immature.


And forcing fathers out of children's lives is government sanctioned child
abuse.


  #252  
Old December 12th 06, 01:20 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote
................

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.

==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


  #253  
Old December 12th 06, 10:39 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.

==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.



Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.

CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.

Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.

Ghostwriter

  #254  
Old December 13th 06, 12:56 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for

illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.

==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child

abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your

drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced

by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They

are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to

the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than

cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the

child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.



Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.


In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.


I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.


Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?


CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.


My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an
accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is
undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state
law.


Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.


Not true. See above.


  #255  
Old December 13th 06, 02:21 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"ghostwriter" wrote

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for

illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child

abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your

drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be
inconvenienced

by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They

are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about
the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to

the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than

cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the

child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.



Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.


In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on
the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit
from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.


I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.


Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed
around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues
of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents."
But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and
Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers.
Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become -
What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?


CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.


My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an
accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is
undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state
law.


Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.


Not true. See above.

==
That was quite an elaborate dance, eh? Gotta give him credit for effort and
creativity.


  #256  
Old December 13th 06, 02:26 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for

illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child

abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your

drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced

by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They

are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to

the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than

cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the

child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.



Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.


In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.


$480 or $600 depending of if the child is 13 yet. I seldom take
teenagers because of the age of my birth children so $16 per day per
child is normal for me. After food, diapers, formula, extra utilities,
etc that comes out to less than $0.50 per hour, $0.25 per man hour when
both my wife and I are home. We also normally recieve a one time $100
voucher to a local department store for clothes/underwear etc. And the
county usally gives another $100 for Christmas gifts for each child if
you have a placement over the holidays. CPS also pays for daycare if
both parents work during the day. Plus $400/year for the 20 hours of
training that me and my wife require to stay licenced.

Other than the voucher the money is always payed in arrears so I am
usually out a couple of hundred bucks before the check arrives. If I
have a small child I make maybe $250-300 a month, and that number goes
down as the age and needs of the child increases.

CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster
parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an
average month. The case worker is required to visit the child in my
home at least once a month, and usally mom and/or dad have a visit once
a week, grandparents once ever two weeks, one doctors visit, one
dentist visit, and oftentimes weekly therapy sessions. Just getting the
child to practice normal hygiene is considered a major accomplishment.
And I routinely amaze case workers because I am brave enough to start
potty training in older toddlers.

Of course the other reason that CPS is unlikley ever to require
accounting of the money is the simple fact that we are a volunteer
group, so making the process more difficult for us is a good way to
drive us away.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.


Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?


Maltreatment includes all possible forms of child abuse including
dependancy type offences. Dependancy being the inability to provide
secure food, shelter, etc. The number I quoted was from CPS in Ohio
and only included physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. That
suggests that 15% of cases were more pure dependency type situations
whereas the 60% number that I quoted was the more severe neglect(which
may or may not be a product of a dependancy situation) and
physical/emotional abuse type offenses. Mothers are almost never
accused of sexual abuse (about 3% of the time if memory serves).

Anectdotally the abuse situations I have seen where mom has been single
and the abuser have almost always involved chemical abuse in some way.
The one situation where is was not was when mom was a complete doormat,
had never been married, had gone from one abusive boyfriend to another,
and her 11yo called the 911 and hid the phone so that the fight would
be recorded. That mom was charged with neglect for failing to protect
her children from the boyfriend. The charges were later dropped after
she swore out a complaint against the boyfriend. Boyfriend was dodging
the law but was stupid enough to show up for his appointment with his
parole officer. They revoked his parole and he went to jail for a
couple of years for that.

CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like
other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary
accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently
been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a
nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble
than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests
of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing.


My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an
accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is
undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state
law.


Thats the choice of the individual state, and a one time affidavit
filed with a request for change is a fairly mild form, certainly more
mild then a lot of people seem to be suggesting.


Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you,
you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to
know how a salary is spent.


Not true. See above.


I stand corrected.

Ghostwriter

  #257  
Old December 13th 06, 02:48 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote
............

CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster
parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an
average month.

==
No accounting is necessary when awards are based on actual and necessary
costs.
Accounting should be required when awards are based on income/lifestyle.


  #258  
Old December 13th 06, 03:40 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in

Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try).


So a normal married couple is now called sexual responsibility? LOL

And here i was thinking that the marriages that actually work was because
two normal people know how to get along well with each other. You must be
a real saint to take in other non sexually responsible people's kids?

Let me guess, you are part of the silent moral majority?





  #259  
Old December 13th 06, 04:00 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"DB" wrote

"ghostwriter" wrote in

Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try).


So a normal married couple is now called sexual responsibility?

==
Well, we don't know that his wife is "happily married."


  #260  
Old December 13th 06, 04:05 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

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

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for

illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty.

But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.
==
Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for

you?
Apparently, you
are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all

child
abuse
is committed
by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your

drooling
for money, do you?
The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best
interest of the child is nothing more
than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be

inconvenienced
by
accountability. We've heard
the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity.

They
are
quite willing to ravage dad while
they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about

the
kid. Spare me. Until you are willing
to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations

to
the
child(ren) you cannot claim with
the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than

cash.
To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money
as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the

child
is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish.


Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but

am
happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give
it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces
when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact
near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is
easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in
this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about
anyone else posting on this topic.


In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on

the
age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit

from
those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your
household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS
money and how it is spent.


$480 or $600 depending of if the child is 13 yet. I seldom take
teenagers because of the age of my birth children so $16 per day per
child is normal for me. After food, diapers, formula, extra utilities,
etc that comes out to less than $0.50 per hour, $0.25 per man hour when
both my wife and I are home. We also normally recieve a one time $100
voucher to a local department store for clothes/underwear etc. And the
county usally gives another $100 for Christmas gifts for each child if
you have a placement over the holidays. CPS also pays for daycare if
both parents work during the day. Plus $400/year for the 20 hours of
training that me and my wife require to stay licenced.

Other than the voucher the money is always payed in arrears so I am
usually out a couple of hundred bucks before the check arrives. If I
have a small child I make maybe $250-300 a month, and that number goes
down as the age and needs of the child increases.

CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster
parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an
average month. The case worker is required to visit the child in my
home at least once a month, and usally mom and/or dad have a visit once
a week, grandparents once ever two weeks, one doctors visit, one
dentist visit, and oftentimes weekly therapy sessions. Just getting the
child to practice normal hygiene is considered a major accomplishment.
And I routinely amaze case workers because I am brave enough to start
potty training in older toddlers.

Of course the other reason that CPS is unlikley ever to require
accounting of the money is the simple fact that we are a volunteer
group, so making the process more difficult for us is a good way to
drive us away.

I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse
and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to

go
allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single
mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of
abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a
training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to
find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are
charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly
correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single
mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of
those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or
incarcerated.


Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed

around
regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm
Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are

issues of
percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents."

But
parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and
parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for

neglect,
some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for
"maltreatment."

Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and

Neglect
reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers.

Above
you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become -

What
is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is

being
quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what
number in the sample?


Maltreatment includes all possible forms of child abuse including
dependancy type offences. Dependancy being the inability to provide
secure food, shelter, etc. The number I quoted was from CPS in Ohio
and only included physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. That
suggests that 15% of cases were more pure dependency type situations
whereas the 60% number that I quoted was the more severe neglect(which
may or may not be a product of a dependancy situation) and
physical/emotional abuse type offenses. Mothers are almost never
accused of sexual abuse (about 3% of the time if memory serves).

Anectdotally the abuse situations I have seen where mom has been single
and the abuser have almost always involved chemical abuse in some way.
The one situation where is was not was when mom was a complete doormat,
had never been married, had gone from one abusive boyfriend to another,
and her 11yo called the 911 and hid the phone so that the fight would
be recorded. That mom was charged with neglect for failing to protect
her children from the boyfriend. The charges were later dropped after
she swore out a complaint against the boyfriend. Boyfriend was dodging
the law but was stupid enough to show up for his appointment with his
parole officer. They revoked his parole and he went to jail for a
couple of years for that.


Thanks for trying to explain it. I already knew nobody could really pin it
down with factual data. The statistics get so mudded up it is impossible to
be able to state with certainty what "60% of abusers are mothers" really
means. It could be 60% of all abusers, 60% of mother only abusers, 60% of
maltreatment by mothers is abuse, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical, 60%
of abuse by mothers is psychological, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical,
etc.

But your anecdote is very good. It illustrates a point we have discussed
here many times. It is not the biological fathers who do the abuse,
neglect, or maltreatment. It is the mother's poor choices in boyfriends who
are the males doing the vast majority of crimes against children. It is my
personal belief mothers should be prosecuted for endangering their children
by inviting bad characters into their homes and exposing their children to
poor treatment.

Under current CS law, we pay mothers money to perpetuate and abet these
crimes against their children. Giving these low life mothers money for
breeding and shacking up is like pouring gasoline on a fire!


 




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 02:29 PM.


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.