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

I need help tracking down a this deadbeat asshole !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #171  
Old March 30th 05, 03:07 AM
xkatx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"T" wrote in message
k.net...

"xkatx" wrote in

because there's also lots of parents who choose not to help with their
children and have more than enough means to survive well, while helping
out financially with their children.


Please show me anyone in America who can afford CS rates?


Please show me anywhere that states this applies to America only.

Isn't it odd that every American screams at the top of their lungs when
the gas prizes go up by just a few cents and claim they can't afford trips
or vactions anymore. Imagine if their gas was hiked to $25/gallon and told
they had to use this gas or go to jail?


Isn't it odd that, since you're making such a huge assumption and clumping a
huge amount of people into a single group, Americans will scream at the top
of their lungs over almost everything and anything. Food, clothing, love
and attention are a necessity for children. Gas and cars are a luxury.
Believe it or not. A person CAN live without their precious cars, but can
anyone survive long without the necessities of life?

That's what it feels like for us that are working and can't afford these
CS rates!!!!!!


Good for you for having a job. Aren't you special? There's custodial
parents who also work and barely make ends meet while trying to provide all
the can for their children. What's your point?


  #172  
Old March 30th 05, 03:23 AM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , teachrmama says...


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , 'Kate says...
..............
If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media
to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are
in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them
that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue
to malign NCF's.

'Kate

===
What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?)
===


Non Custodial Father? (That's my guess)

===
Ahh... that works. See, I should have known that. It's this age thing, I guess.
===




  #173  
Old March 30th 05, 03:36 AM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article IRn2e.844811$6l.74125@pd7tw2no, xkatx says...


"T" wrote in message
nk.net...

"xkatx" wrote in

because there's also lots of parents who choose not to help with their
children and have more than enough means to survive well, while helping
out financially with their children.


Please show me anyone in America who can afford CS rates?


Please show me anywhere that states this applies to America only.

Isn't it odd that every American screams at the top of their lungs when
the gas prizes go up by just a few cents and claim they can't afford trips
or vactions anymore. Imagine if their gas was hiked to $25/gallon and told
they had to use this gas or go to jail?


Isn't it odd that, since you're making such a huge assumption and clumping a
huge amount of people into a single group, Americans will scream at the top
of their lungs over almost everything and anything. Food, clothing, love
and attention are a necessity for children. Gas and cars are a luxury.
Believe it or not. A person CAN live without their precious cars, but can
anyone survive long without the necessities of life?

That's what it feels like for us that are working and can't afford these
CS rates!!!!!!


Good for you for having a job. Aren't you special? There's custodial
parents who also work and barely make ends meet while trying to provide all
the can for their children. What's your point?

===
Maybe the custodial parent should not have had a child they could not afford?
===



  #174  
Old March 30th 05, 04:49 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , 'Kate says...
..............
If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media
to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are
in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them
that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue
to malign NCF's.

'Kate

===
What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?)
===


Necessary Cash Forwarder?

Negative Cash Flowee?

Natural Capital Furnisher?

No Child Father?

Nookie Costs Forever?

Nasty Court Fiat?

No Chance Farce?

Normal Childless Fate?

Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was
really meant.




  #175  
Old March 30th 05, 05:45 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:

Given that the greatest number of non-payers (by a wide margin) are
fathers, why go after the mother?


This is a serious comment, yes? The reason why the greatest numbers of
non-payers, on a strictly numerical basis, are fathers *is because* the
greatest number of *all* payers, by a whopping margin are men. Take one
percent of a billion and you are going to come up with a larger number
than 50% of a thousand.

Now, switch those figures around, and all of a sudden, where custody
situations and child maintenance equal, you'd have, statistically
speaking, a population of 500 million non-payers as opposed to the
100,000 that you have now. The *reason* for this is that it has been my
personal experience that women are treated far more gently then men are
in this process.

Take a look at child access interference. Were that prosecuted to the
same extent that child maintenance is prosecuted, heck we'd have kids
growing up without parents, because both Mom and Dad would be in jail.

But aside from that, mothers are
listed in the non-payers listings when they are on websites and in the
papers in many areas. If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media
to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are
in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them
that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue
to malign NCF's.


Been there, doing that. The term is perhaps widespread by the media,
but it is consistently placed forward by advocate groups to keep the
terms in front of people. Take the term 'lesbianism.' Absolutely great
pr work on the group that advocated that. On the one hand, you've got
'gays' which are maligned because they are male homosexuals. On the
other you've got 'lesbians,' who in reality are merely female gays, but
the perception is much different, because their pr machine was better.

Take the Dead Beat Dad 'concept.' Again, a better pr machine. And it's
not the media. The system is continually reinforced through domestic
violence issues, child support issues. Oh, and if I recall correctly,
aren't the majority of voters women?

it is a gender thing only because a small part of one gender has made it
a gender thing. One can either evolve back to the centre which takes
time and pain, or revolt back to the centre. That's why you get people
making it into a *huge* gender thing, to push it back to the centre.
The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of
pushing too far in the opposite direction.

Just my two kopeks worth.

Rambler

  #176  
Old March 30th 05, 06:12 AM
John Riggs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Where do I sign on in this revolution, general?


"Rambler" wrote in message
...
|
| The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of
| pushing too far in the opposite direction.
|
| Just my two kopeks worth.
|
| Rambler
|


  #177  
Old March 30th 05, 08:25 AM
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
k.net...

"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , 'Kate says...
..............
If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media
to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are
in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them
that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue
to malign NCF's.

'Kate

===
What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?)
===


Necessary Cash Forwarder?

Negative Cash Flowee?

Natural Capital Furnisher?

No Child Father?

Nookie Costs Forever?

Nasty Court Fiat?

No Chance Farce?

Normal Childless Fate?

Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was
really meant.


Oh, but I like yours much better, Bob! chuckle


  #178  
Old March 30th 05, 01:59 PM
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article t, Bob Whiteside
says...


"Gini" wrote in message
...
In article , 'Kate says...
..............
If I were a NCF, I would be fighting the media
to get rid of the term. Most of the people working in media who are
in positions of power are men. Start writing them and telling them
that you will refuse to buy their sponsor's products if they continue
to malign NCF's.

'Kate

===
What's an NCF? (Bob, should I know this?)
===


Necessary Cash Forwarder?

Negative Cash Flowee?

Natural Capital Furnisher?

No Child Father?

Nookie Costs Forever?

Nasty Court Fiat?

No Chance Farce?

Normal Childless Fate?

Pick one - or go with Teachrmama's suggestion which is probably what was
really meant.

===
Geeze, now I'm really confused. (But, I bet it starts with 'no chance.' It just
sounds right.)
===

  #179  
Old March 30th 05, 11:35 PM
Cloaked
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

SNIP


Take a look at child access interference. Were that prosecuted to the
same extent that child maintenance is prosecuted, heck we'd have kids
growing up without parents, because both Mom and Dad would be in jail.


Hmm... man cheats on woman. Woman runs him down in the parking lot of
the hotel where he was having sex with his mistress. Woman pleads "but
you can't put me in jail, the children will be without a parent."


I am sure that arguement has been made somewhere at sometime!

Interesting that you immediately pull a stereotype in your example - a
very negative stereotype about men!

It never occurred to you that lots of women cheat on their husbands
and then divorce them AND take them to the cleaners???

Want to see if your example is nuts?? Reverse the genders and you will
immediately see how crazy the argument is!

So... let me ask you... are you responding the way that you are
because you're a man in that situation or because you think it's fair
for everyone to be put in jail for not supporting children? Do you
really think that this is "either/or" or is there another option
wherein people actually support their own children and don't run out
on payments *OR* children?


So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

I'll tell you what I think, I think that when the custodial parent -
usually the woman - interferes with court ordered access of the
non-custodial partent - usually the man - that the offender should
spend an automatic 7 nights in the crow-bar hotel. No exceptions. No
excuses. No trial. No appeal. Automatic done deal. 2nd offense?? 14
nights. 3rd offense??? 30 days. 4th Offense??? loss of custody.

Before you cry fowl and say it is so unfair, consider the "punsihment"
that a man may receive for "non-payment":

Cancellation of Passport
Loss of Drivers License
Imprisonment
Criminal Contempt Charges
Fines
Garnishment of wages
Revokation of Business License
Revokation of Professional Status
Loss of right to vote

The list goes on...

Sorry, from where I sit women do not undergo these indignities. And
when a woman choses to interfere with access, it is done so with
virtual impunity.

Why the onesided party???? Why should not women enjoy the same
persecution and prosecution as men??

Don't like it? How about telling your local politician to lighten up
of the "dead beat dad" crap - because that is all it is - crap. It is
spewed from the mouths of politicians because it sounds good to women
and the sole purpose is to garner part of the vote - it has nothing to
do with facts, reason, or justice.

The best option is to balance not just the laws, but the
implementation of those laws. Justice must not only be done, it must
be SEEN to be done! To balance, either women must suffer as men do, or
men's lot must be lightened to the same level that women are privy to.

Which would you prefer??

  #180  
Old March 30th 05, 11:56 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



'Kate wrote:

Why is it that whenever you talk to men about these emotional things,
they use personal experience? It's as if the rest of the world does
not exist.


Boggle

I think *people* tend to go right to personal experience when discussing
emotional things. I mean it's not like women, by comparision, are more
likely to head right for the objective data when discussing emotional
issues. Come on.


Take a look at child access interference. Were that prosecuted to the
same extent that child maintenance is prosecuted, heck we'd have kids
growing up without parents, because both Mom and Dad would be in jail.



Hmm... man cheats on woman. Woman runs him down in the parking lot of
the hotel where he was having sex with his mistress. Woman pleads "but
you can't put me in jail, the children will be without a parent."


I'm not sure what the relevance of this little vignette is.


So... let me ask you... are you responding the way that you are
because you're a man in that situation or because you think it's fair
for everyone to be put in jail for not supporting children? Do you
really think that this is "either/or" or is there another option
wherein people actually support their own children and don't run out
on payments *OR* children?


I think almost everyone here will agree that both parents should support
their children financially and emotionally. The Devil is in the details.

I don't beleive the OP was actually advocating that both parents should
be thrown in jail.

But you already know that, I think. The logic presented is pretty basic
stuff, and the only way I can see someone misreading it is if they are
being deliberately obfuscatory in an effort to confound other readers.


Because being male is the be all end all as far as being top of the
food chain.


That depends entirely on which "food chain" you are talking about. To
use a metaphor, a great white shark is not at the top of the food chain
in the middle of the Gobi desert. He's more of a sitting duck.
Environment plays a very significant factor.

In family court, men are most certainly not at "the top of the food
chain". To suggest otherwise is... well... nonsensical because it
flies in the face of so much data indicating the opposite.


Take the women who leave their children or are not "given" custody of
their children.... aren't they treated more harshly by society? They
are automatically seen as bad mothers or crazy or drunks or drug
abusers. We immediatly think, "What's wrong with her?" because it is
not the norm.


You're right. Non-Custodial Moms are generally assumed to have done
something "wrong" in order to have "lost" custody. But what does that
say about the reality of the family court system? Is there
statistically anything behind it? What kind of women lose custody
cases? If I were a gambling man, I'd bet that there were would be a
significantly higher percentage who were "bad mothers", "crazy",
"drunks", and "drug abusers" than the equivalent for men who lost
custody disputes. Of course I *could* be wrong, but I don't think so.


Take the men who have custody or are widowed. They are
treated like idiots who don't know how to parent their own children.


Eh? I have my son half of the time and I don't recall ever being
treated like an idiot who didn't know how to parent. Are you citing a
study here, or just going on personal experience?


They are offered far more help than single women.


How?


Single women are
called welfare moms and treated like "you made your bed.

I don't
declare "I'm a widow" immediately. . . you would be surprised at how
many are ready to tell me how if I had been a good wife and mother, I
wouldn't be in this situation.... even among fellow family therapist
students the assumption is that I'm divorced or never married. And
you know... what's it matter? The stiuation is the same.


So you are upset that just because you are a single mother, people
assume you are freeloading off the system and feel animosity towards you
because of that. I guess I can see that. I certainly wouldn't like
that attitude directed at me either, if it weren't true of me (and
probably even if it were).

But where do you think the prejudice comes from?


Ah, we all have our pet peeves don't we?


Sure do. And to be fair, is it really reasonable to expect anyone to
have as much of a conniption about a societal prejudice that hasn't and
isn't ever going to affect *them*, personally?


it is a gender thing only because a small part of one gender has made it
a gender thing.



I can go either way as far as fairness but here's another side:

It is a gender thing because judges, who were by and large male, had
something called the tender years doctrine. The rise in the divorce
rate is, in part, because of economic stress in the marriage. Money.
Lack thereof. This trend became more pronounced in the late 1970's
with the formation of OPEC and the drastic, almost overnight increase
in crude oil prices. The rise in oil prices increased the price of
commodities immediately - milk, bread, and other perishable goods.
This, in turn, caused more and more mothers to need to work to help
provide for the family. The middle class nearly perished. I believe
that men were caught short trying to adjust to a family structure that
was anything but the ideal Ozzie and Harriet home life. They grew
angry and resentful.... probably for a good reason. Their fathers
didn't exactly model the behaviors that they'd have to adopt to
compensate for working mothers.


Well now I've never heard the connection between oil and divorce before.
Where'd you hear that one?

You work to explain the rise in divorce but the explanation has little
to do with the aforementioned "tender years" doctrine.


I also think that wives would sacrifice their lives for their children
before they would sacrifice their lives for their husbands. I believe
that husbands would save their wives before their children. I don't
know why that is but maybe it works survival-wise. Perhaps this,
alone, accounts for the tender years doctrine. What's that famous
painting of the mother whose baby was stolen and, when the judge said
that they'd simply cut the baby in half, chose to give the child up to
spare its life? Similar... but different.


It's a story of the wisdom of King Solomon. And for the record, I'm
sure I'd save my child before my spouse -- even my current one. That
just feels natural as a parent. Maybe I'm just a freak, who knows? :^/
Seems like we're both just talking "belief" here though.


One can either evolve back to the centre which takes
time and pain, or revolt back to the centre. That's why you get people
making it into a *huge* gender thing, to push it back to the centre.
The problem with that is that a 'revolution' has an amazing tendancy of
pushing too far in the opposite direction.

Just my two kopeks worth.



It's an interesting two kopecks, comrade. :-)
I agree that the immediate reaction is often revolutionary and, over
time, the pendulum swings until a liveable agreement is reached.


Well we're certainly not there at the moment.


I
don't agree that anyone is going to be happy about the result. If
they were, we wouldn't need divorce and custody law.


No matter the system, some people are going to be unhappy about the
results. But there's a difference between "unhappy" and "abused".
Black slaves in the deep Southern USA were undoubtedly "unhappy" about
their situation, and I don't think an explanation of "Well, no matter
how we work things out, SOMEONE will be unhappy..." could ever have
smoothed over their grievances. I'll tell you, as a victim of this
system, that kind of palliative talk only infuriates me.

- Ron ^*^

 




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
State warns county about deadbeat parent ads/10-2 Dave Briggman Child Support 0 October 2nd 04 01:19 AM
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads Don Child Support 8 August 12th 04 07:17 AM
Deadbeat Fathers are a growing problem throughout the region Fighting for kids Child Support 5 November 12th 03 03:33 AM
Deadbeat Parent Finder Service infopro Child Support 21 October 6th 03 04:38 PM
Boksa, birth insults and schizophrenia (also: Gastaldo 'you ignorant asshole' --Allen D. Radant, MD) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 July 14th 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 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.