deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)

"teachrmama" wrote in

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all in
poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard whatsoever?

There was no standard before the CS industry was spewed into society and the
American family thrived!
What we need is more self reliance and less dependence on government
control.

There's already enough laws in place for a woman to walk away from an
unwanted pregnancy if she feels that she can not financially afford to raise
her child.

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all
in poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard
whatsoever?

There was no standard before the CS industry was spewed into society and
the American family thrived!

Yes, there was a problem, DB. There were children living in poverty because
their mothers could not support them, and the fathers were nowehere to be
found. That's what set the system up to begin with. If the CS program had
done what is was set up to do, and only worked with those parents who seemed
incapable of handling the situation themselves, it never would have become a
problem. But it has spiraled wildly out of control.

What we need is more self reliance and less dependence on government
control.

And for the vast majority, that is all that is needed. Just as the vast
majority have no personal need for prisons, because they do what is right
and responsible. But I would not get rid of all prosons just because the
vast majority function fine without them.


There's already enough laws in place for a woman to walk away from an
unwanted pregnancy if she feels that she can not financially afford to
raise her child.

And I truly believe that if she cannot afford to rear a child on her own,
then she should make the choice to walk away. But that does not cover every
situation. What about the married man who decides to walk out on his wife
and 4 children and never look back. What do you do with him? Should that
woman "walk away" from her children, too?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Gini" wrote in message news:OwLWi.13$kH.5@trndny04...

"The Master" wrote in message
r.org...
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Chris wrote:

I don't understand how the needs and wants of the parents superscede
those
of
the childs....

Parents are real living human beings too, all are Equal!
Lets not forget who is in charge, the parents of the child!!!!!

Correction: It's the mother. Well, at least that's what their
government
people say.

My ex-wife is getting $507 every two weeks for child support of my two
children. If she was using the money for the kids, I'd be fine with it.
But she is going back to a state university to get her degree, saving up
for a wedding to her new boy friend, and all the while not getting my
kids
the hair cuts they keep asking her for! Makes me wonder who my checks
really are supporting...
==
Doesn't matter to the government. Its concern is getting the money to the
custodial parent.
As long as the kids aren't cold or starving, she's free to spend it on
anything she wishes. NCPs
are the only class of parents held to a higher standard of support.
The government is aware that it only needs to present the *illusion* that
it's "in the best interest
of the child" -- Kinda like the *illusion* of democracy is the only
requirement for keeping the citizens
loyal to the nation.

You forgot to mention that NCPs (fathers) are the ONLY ones exempt from the
Constitutional protection against debtors prison.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would
have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives should
be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child
support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But there
still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to
acknowledge
any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the
government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again
if
the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping
your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole
people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and take
the
easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not
truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

The solution is to ELIMINATE the "child support" industry. The remedy
for
parents who neglect their children should be the same for ALL
parents.

And that would be.............?

Hint: When you see married parents on the news who have neglected their
children................

Sorry--that does not answer the question. How would you make sure that
the
child's needs were being met? Would you arrest the mother for being ill
and
unable to work in a case where the father had walked out on his family and
refused either money or contact? How would you deal with the issue if you
completely wiped out child support?

Ever hear the phrase "did willfully and wantonly"? "Child support" is
nothing more than punishment BEFORE the crime has been comitted.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
t...

"teachrmama" wrote in

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones
who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all
in poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard
whatsoever?

There was no standard before the CS industry was spewed into society and
the American family thrived!

Yes, there was a problem, DB. There were children living in poverty
because
their mothers could not support them, and the fathers were nowehere to be
found. That's what set the system up to begin with. If the CS program
had
done what is was set up to do, and only worked with those parents who
seemed
incapable of handling the situation themselves, it never would have become
a
problem. But it has spiraled wildly out of control.

What we need is more self reliance and less dependence on government
control.

And for the vast majority, that is all that is needed. Just as the vast
majority have no personal need for prisons, because they do what is right
and responsible. But I would not get rid of all prosons just because the
vast majority function fine without them.


There's already enough laws in place for a woman to walk away from an
unwanted pregnancy if she feels that she can not financially afford to
raise her child.

And I truly believe that if she cannot afford to rear a child on her own,
then she should make the choice to walk away. But that does not cover
every
situation. What about the married man who decides to walk out on his wife
and 4 children and never look back. What do you do with him? Should that
woman "walk away" from her children, too?

Guess that would be HER call. Nonetheless, it is a legal option for her.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

What would you put in place of the child support system?

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all in
poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard whatsoever?

With all due respect, what's it to YOU? Why is it any of YOUR business how
someone else handles their affairs? How about you take care of YOUR
children, and let the other moms take care of theirs.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority would
have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives should
be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child
support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But
there
still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to
acknowledge
any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the
government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but again
if
the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid helping
your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole
people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and take
the
easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not
truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

The solution is to ELIMINATE the "child support" industry. The
remedy
for
parents who neglect their children should be the same for ALL
parents.

And that would be.............?

Hint: When you see married parents on the news who have neglected their
children................

Sorry--that does not answer the question. How would you make sure that
the
child's needs were being met? Would you arrest the mother for being ill
and
unable to work in a case where the father had walked out on his family
and
refused either money or contact? How would you deal with the issue if
you
completely wiped out child support?

Ever hear the phrase "did willfully and wantonly"? "Child support" is
nothing more than punishment BEFORE the crime has been comitted.

OK, here's the scenario, Chris. Bob and Mary have been married for 12
years. They have 3 children: Bob, Jr-8, and Tara and Tasha, 5 and
autistic. Bob meets Betty Bigboobs at the office, and ends up running off
with her. He completely abandons his family. Mary, who has suffered from
anemia since the birth of the twins, has always worked part time, but must
now find a full time job. But her small paycheck does not cover all the
expenses of her family, especially with the special health needs they have.
Bob refuses to have anything to do with them. He does not want custody.
How do you get Bob to assume some financial responsibility for his children,
to help cover their needs?

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

What would you put in place of the child support system?

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all
in
poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard whatsoever?

With all due respect, what's it to YOU? Why is it any of YOUR business how
someone else handles their affairs? How about you take care of YOUR
children, and let the other moms take care of theirs.

With all due respect, what's it to you if a gang of young thugs is breaking
into homes and pistol whipping your neighbors before robbing them blind?
How about if you tend to your house and let other homeowners attend to
theirs? That would certainly save us the cost of prisons!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

What would you put in place of the child support system?

A parent indepedance program!

And that is waht is needed for the vast majority of parents--they are
perfectly capable of handling their own affairs and they take their
responsibilities seriously. What about the true deadbeats--the ones
who
father a dozen children by an equal number of women, and leave them all
in
poverty. Would you do nothing about that? Have no standard
whatsoever?

With all due respect, what's it to YOU? Why is it any of YOUR business
how
someone else handles their affairs? How about you take care of YOUR
children, and let the other moms take care of theirs.

With all due respect, what's it to you if a gang of young thugs is
breaking
into homes and pistol whipping your neighbors before robbing them blind?
How about if you tend to your house and let other homeowners attend to
theirs? That would certainly save us the cost of prisons!

Especially if they enter MY home. At most, it would cost me a few .357
rounds!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have
custody of such child]
"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

I absolutely agree with you on this point. It was absolutely
ridiculous
to force everyone into the system, when the vast majority
would
have
been able to work things out themselves. The incentives
should
be
removed, 50/50 joint custody should be the default, and child
support,
when needed, should cover basic needs--NOT lifestyle! But
there
still
needs to be a system in place for the 3% who refuse to
acknowledge
any
responsibility at all.

Given that the majority of the 3% are down and out, the
government
has
means to garnish assets from people with real income, but
again
if
the
system were fair, there would be little motive to avoid
helping
your
own
children.

The CS system is not the solution, it's the problem!

As it stands now, you are right. We do need to be able to hole
people
responsible. Just not the way it is being done now.

The system is 100% ineffective at holding people to their
responsibilities,
they ignore the very people they are supposed to impose on and
take
the
easy
cases that are already paying and claim victories that are re not
truly
earned.

The Collection industry is all about self preservation!

The solution is to ELIMINATE the "child support" industry. The
remedy
for
parents who neglect their children should be the same for ALL
parents.

And that would be.............?

Hint: When you see married parents on the news who have neglected
their
children................

Sorry--that does not answer the question. How would you make sure that
the
child's needs were being met? Would you arrest the mother for being
ill
and
unable to work in a case where the father had walked out on his family
and
refused either money or contact? How would you deal with the issue if
you
completely wiped out child support?

Ever hear the phrase "did willfully and wantonly"? "Child support" is
nothing more than punishment BEFORE the crime has been comitted.

OK, here's the scenario, Chris. Bob and Mary have been married for 12
years. They have 3 children: Bob, Jr-8, and Tara and Tasha, 5 and
autistic. Bob meets Betty Bigboobs at the office, and ends up running off
with her. He completely abandons his family. Mary, who has suffered from
anemia since the birth of the twins, has always worked part time, but must
now find a full time job. But her small paycheck does not cover all the
expenses of her family, especially with the special health needs they
have.
Bob refuses to have anything to do with them. He does not want custody.
How do you get Bob to assume some financial responsibility for his
children,
to help cover their needs?

You are confusing giving someone money with taking care of children.
But to entertain your scenario, give a neglecting parent the option to
either care for their child, or someone ELSE will. But guess what: the
caring person is also the custodian. Quite simple.