Name change because parent not visiting child

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents, too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here object to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all on the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money appropriately.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents, too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might be the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP
mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents,
too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none of our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to explain my
previous answer.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best
for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP
mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents,
too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast majority you
cited?

And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in



IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS
MORE
OF
THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR
GREATER
IF

THAT

HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS,
BUT
THAT

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or
innocence!

SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's
mothers
is
the
solution to broken homes?

No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their
child
support is an excellent way to protect their children from
future
abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates,
dirt
cheap
babysitters.


Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to
stop
the

mom

from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you
really

think

that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more
costly

ones?

Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to
thier
difficulties? Why pin it all on the father?

Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd.


I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s"
or
the
foster care children are "*******s."

But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money
would
solve
all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class
warfare
and
more money changing hands will fix every problem.

Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side
of
this
issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that
causes
women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of
their
children's lives.

Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money
at
societal problems will make them better and get beyond making
wild
assumptions that fit an agenda.



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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't*
trust
them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with
consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few
children,
I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are
made
clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy
are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where
it
was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and
were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not?
How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after
those
wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get
those
who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy
collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of
NCPs
can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became
the
default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children.

You have a level of information and understanding about each child in
your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child
support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that
environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A
overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of
information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are
not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book
laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you
decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each
party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge,
and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of
both situations are completely different.

I don't think so. The system would not be overloaded if the parents who
have no intention of shirking were not forced into the system. Then ONLY
the shirkers would be left to deal with. No more overload.



Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child
support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental
support.

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

ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of
fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives.

That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint
custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt
change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions
and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a
huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for
investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers",
but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So
increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to
investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those
kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger
mess than the current system.

You don't need a plugged nickel to find out who are the "good fathers." It
is obvious. They are involved in the lives of their children, and provide
for them. How hard is that? You seem to feel that fathers need to be
forced to be caring. Why do you feel that way?

Phil wrote:

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

Phil wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
groups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
glegroups.com...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ooglegroups.com...

P Fritz wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote:


"P Fritz" wrote in message
. ..


teachrmama wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
news:1163377566.648888.100490@h54g2000 cwb.googlegroups.com...



DB wrote:



"ghostwriter" wrote in




IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD
FATHERS MORE
OF
THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS
FAR
GREATER
IF

THAT


HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT
SUCKS, BUT
THAT

IS


THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt
or
innocence!

SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's
mothers
is
the
solution to broken homes?

No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion
of
their
child
support is an excellent way to protect their children
from
future
abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive
boyfriend/roomates,
dirt
cheap
babysitters.


Do you really think that having a bit more money is going
to
stop
the

mom


from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do

you
really

think


that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive
than
more
costly

ones?


Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have
led
to thier
difficulties? Why pin it all on the father?

Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim
crowd.


I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are
"*******s" or
the
foster care children are "*******s."

But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more
money
would
solve
all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more
class
warfare
and
more money changing hands will fix every problem.

Too bad all the research and social science proves the
other
side of
this
issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial
motivator
that
causes
women to want to walk away from relationships and push men
out of
their
children's lives.

Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why
tossing
money at
societal problems will make them better and get beyond
making
wild
assumptions that fit an agenda.



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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I
*can't*
trust
them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with
consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few
children,
I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations
are
made
clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves
untrustworthy
are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom
where it
was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to
shirk,
and
were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked
or
not?
How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go
after
those
wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and
get
those
who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy
collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast
majority
of NCPs
can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody
became the
default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children.

You have a level of information and understanding about each child
in
your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a
child
support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that
environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as
quickly.
A
overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of
information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but
are
not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and
book
laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you
decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each
party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole,
dodge,
and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption
of
both situations are completely different.

Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child
support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of
parental
support.


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

ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of
fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives.

That support should always be expected but parental support in a
joint
custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt
change the fact that given the lack of information harsh
assumptions
and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from
doing a
huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for
investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good
fathers",
but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So
increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to
investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those
kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger
mess than the current system.

Ghostwriter


After reading this several times, the only way I can summarize it is
that you prefer punishing men with or without cause.
Phil #3

I perfer punishing men over punishing children. I would rather punish
with cause, but am willing to accept that the increases in social
services necessary to figure out who has given cause are unlikley to
be
inacted anytime soon. As long as one side wraps themselves in the
plight of the the single mothers like a flag, and the other side
accuses them of every vile thing imaginable while claiming to be
principled, nothing is going to be accomplished.

If the fathers rights people woke up and started screaming for the
heads of the true deadbeats and abusive fathers, while advocating more
reasonable standards for those fathers that had met a measureable
standard, them maybe something might happen. But like I said not
likley
to happen in the near future.

Ghostwriter



You must not read the replies to your posts for that is exactly what
Teachermama and others have been saying.
And it's not "father's" rights but "equal" rights.
Phil #3



But the clueless socialist will never get it, his head his wedged too
far up his ass.

"I perfer punishing men over punishing children. I would rather punish
with cause, but am willing to accept that the increases in social
services necessary to figure out who has given cause are unlikley to
be inacted anytime soon. "

I.E. the same old liebral socialist mantra..... "it for the children"
he seeks to trample individual rights in the name of mythical
entitlements of children.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best
for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP
mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're parents,
too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all
on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money
appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might
be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief
CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast majority
you
cited?

Many more than 50% and you know what I mean. A person has the ability to
speak figuratively without being exact about some quantity. It's the same
thing as you saying I shouldn't castigate "all CP mothers." Your word games
make you look foolish. How many fewer than "all" do you mean?


And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to
the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

NCP's have a mandatory requirement to provide a financial accounting of
their incomes and expenses to CP's. There is nothing voluntary about it.

"ghostwriter" wrote in

If the fathers rights people woke up and started screaming for the
heads of the true deadbeats and abusive fathers,

And who are the true dead beats?

You sir are a fool if you believe this system is actually interested in
finding out who the true dead beats are. Most people are in the system
becuase they are too poor to buy their freedom.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote
in



IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD
FATHERS
MORE OF
THE
BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS
FAR
GREATER IF

THAT

HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT
SUCKS,
BUT
THAT

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of
guilt or
innocence!

SO you think sending enough money to these abused
kid's
mothers is
the
solution to broken homes?

No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion
of
their child
support is an excellent way to protect their children
from
future
abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive
boyfriend/roomates,
dirt
cheap
babysitters.


Do you really think that having a bit more money is
going to
stop the

mom

from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do
you
really

think

that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive
than more
costly

ones?

Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have
led to
thier
difficulties? Why pin it all on the father?

Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim
crowd.


I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are
"*******s" or
the
foster care children are "*******s."

But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about
more money
would
solve
all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more
class
warfare
and
more money changing hands will fix every problem.

Too bad all the research and social science proves the
other
side of
this
issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial
motivator
that
causes
women to want to walk away from relationships and push
men out
of their
children's lives.

Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why
tossing
money at
societal problems will make them better and get beyond
making
wild
assumptions that fit an agenda.



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

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

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

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

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

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that?

It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who
choose
to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do
that
without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it
but it
would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As
it is,
those who willingly pay are being touted as money being
forcefully
collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant
about
not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force
money
from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the
children,
many see the falicy and opt out.

So you dont want to opt out you just want the amount to be
undetermined
and unenforcable except in extreme cases. That of course isnt
going to
lead to more failed households, yeah right. Sounds like a
Libertarian
rosetintted view personally.

No! Let the parents act like adults and discuss together what the
children need.

Unfortunately, you can't control how people act, and not all parents
act like adults.

So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones?

Please don't put *your* words into *my* response.


FYI: The "?" at the end indicates a question, not a statement.




Let the fathers be just as involved as the mothers in the raising of
the children, instead of just being walking wallets.

Unfortunately, not all fathers WANT to be just as involved as
mothers.

So your answer is to treat all men like the few uncaring ones?

Please don't put *your* words into *my* response.


FYI: The "?" at the end indicates a question, not a statement.





Let the parents decide
together that Little League is important for Johnny, and decide
together who will buy the uniform and pay the fees
required--instead of mom being able to go to court to force dad to
pay more because *she* decides that Little League is important.

Unfortunately,. not all divorced/separated parents of children are
able to decide ANYTHING together.

So you prefer preventing those that can because a few (on each side)
won't?

Please don't put *your* words into *my* response.


FYI: The "?" at the end indicates a question, not a statement.





Let the parents BE parents! You are sooooooooooo
distrustful!! Why do you think that fathers are out to harm and/or
purposely neglect their children?



Yes I agree that many if not most of the time this would work but
it
would also prevent enforcement in the large number of cases in
which it
wouldnt work.

Geesh, ghost! Enforcement is specifically for the times that the
above system wouldn't work! By spending so much energy collecting
from those who would gladly take care of things on their own, LESS
time and energy are available for those who refuse to do what is
right. The current is actually making it *easier* for true
deadbeats to get away with it.


By the way nothing says a child support order must be in
place, a great many CP's do not feel they are necessary to make
the NCP
pay. And I imagine that a lot of child support orders are because
the
CP is greedy, but of course I imagine that an equal number exist
because the NCP's idea of reasonable child support, isnt.

Then let's concentrate on the true deadbeats, and the truly greedy
CPs.

And how would you determine the level of someone's greed? Whatt
would be the guidelines for acceptable levels of greed, versus
unacceptable levels of greed? Face it, all people, at some time or
another, experience greed - whether it be a larger slice of cake,
bigger helping of steak, whatever.


Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the best for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the CP
mothers who are getting CS aren't using it for their children?
They're parents, too, and presumably just as likely to want the best
for their children.


Some people KNOW where a lot of the money goes from first-hand
knowledge. Ask my 20 year old son; he knows for a fact.
By using the word "many" when stating something like "many do this" or
"many do that", there is left others on the other side of the statement
who are opposite.
I did not say *all* parents want the best for their children. That would
obviously be incorrect from the number of divorces for selfish reasons,
which I feel are most of them.
Hope that helps you understand.
Phil #3






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

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

What causes most of the problem is two adults having kids and
being
unable to make it work. Child support is an attempt by the state
(a
clumsy, heavyhanded one) to insure the welfare of the only
blameless
party, the kids.

And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support of the mother,
who has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide more than
bare bones support for her children. She gets to spend the rest
however she wants to.

She also gets all the "pay me now" bills for the children - it's
silly to assume that she pays none of the expenses of the children
with that child support money, puts them on welfare rations,
tattered clothing from the trashbin and no electricity after 6pm so
the mom can what? Buy lottery tickets?

TM did NOT say she pays none of the bills from C$. Read it again.
She also gets bills that vary according to HER lifestyle. That is an
important point you keep overlooking.
C$ is a set and unwavering amount of money, needed or not. Actual
costs are extremely variable.
Oh, and I'm sure that many women who receive C$ (and welfare) do
indeed buy lottery tickets.


You must have a very low opinion of CP mothers, if you think that we
don't have the same priorities of taking care of our children
first - realistically,. there's nothing to stop a married parent
from onlyt providing the bare bones support for their children, and
then spend the rest however they want it to - why would you hold a
divorced parent to a different standard?

That is EXACTLY what she's asking... that you failed to answer. Why
the double standard?
I'm sure all readers who have been reading here (alt.c-s) for more
than a few months are aware of your low opinion of fathers and that
you seem to feel that they never share priorities that you seem to
think only mothers have in regard to their children.
There really IS nothing to stop married parents from only providing
the bare bones support for their children: the difference is that the
married parents can INSURE that the support for the children actually
gets TO THE CHILDREN without filtering it through another adult who
may or may not be honorable. Statistics indicate that the amount of
interaction between parent and child is a good indicator of how well
the parent supports the children. (IOW, as you forcefully decrease
interaction, you risk less likelihood of C$ payments).
In the end, if the mantra 'its for the children' is accurate, it
should also apply to married parents... 'for the children's sake'.
Phil #3
(snip)

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

Accountability and equality in support would eliminate most
of the
problem. Thankfully, many parents, male and female, want the
best
for
their children.

Then why do you think so many posters on here insist that the
CP
mothers
who
are getting CS aren't using it for their children? They're
parents,
too,
and presumably just as likely to want the best for their
children.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands
of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come
here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was
all
on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP
mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money
appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they
might
be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've
seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my
belief
CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to
the NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was
none of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for
their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to
explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast
majority
you
cited?

Many more than 50% and you know what I mean. A person has the ability
to
speak figuratively without being exact about some quantity. It's the
same
thing as you saying I shouldn't castigate "all CP mothers." Your word
games
make you look foolish. How many fewer than "all" do you mean?


And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting
to
the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

NCP's have a mandatory requirement to provide a financial accounting
of
their incomes and expenses to CP's. There is nothing voluntary about
it.

About that...
Under state statute, both parents in Oklahoma during the period of my
divorce and custody were required to share income with each other. In my
case one of us did, the other did not. You can guess which is which
without any difficulty, I'm sure.
The problem was that I suffered a 50% reduction in earnings while she
'suffered' a 300% increase; she didn't think I knew.
Phil #3