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

"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]
"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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or are you
saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for the
children?

"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
...

"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!

But it is not your worry if they enter into your neighbors' homes--you only
tend to your own home, right?

"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]
"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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or are
you saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for the
children?



For every step that the father's rights movement takes forward, individuals
like chris take it two steps backwards.

"animal02" wrote in message
news:QrudnfLy5sOfCLPanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or are
you saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for the
children?



For every step that the father's rights movement takes forward,
individuals like chris take it two steps backwards.

I cannot imagine a parent who has been a part of the child's life since the
birth of the child ever wanting to just walk away from the child. And I
cannot imagine how anyone can say that it should be ok for a parent to do
so, if that is what they want. It boggles the mind.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"animal02" wrote in message
news:QrudnfLy5sOfCLPanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or are
you saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for
the children?



For every step that the father's rights movement takes forward,
individuals like chris take it two steps backwards.

I cannot imagine a parent who has been a part of the child's life since
the birth of the child ever wanting to just walk away from the child. And
I cannot imagine how anyone can say that it should be ok for a parent to
do so, if that is what they want. It boggles the mind.


Which is by people lik e Chris do so much damage to the progress. The
become the poster children for groups like NOW.
His insistence on "going nuclear" and the all or nothing approach not only
dooms himself to failure, but many along with him.

"teachrmama" wrote in

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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear?

That's exactly the mentality that fuels the present system and has given the
government the right to take away freedoms and liberties that they will not
give back. What I don't understand is the need to criminalize this social
problem when they have all the tools to extract large sums of money from
unwilling deadbeats which are few at best.

The only way to put controls on this system is to limit the government's
authority by decriminalizing all fathers and capping CS awards to a very
bare basics need of food and clothing. This guaranteed lifestyle rubbish is
socialist thinking and unrealistic. The only one that is profiting with this
system is the government, they even brag about it in their news letter!

Put the power of giving & caring back in the hands of fathers that want to
take care of their own kids, so they can buy coats, Shoes, toys, ad any
other gifts because they want to and can afford to do so without the force
of big government threatening prison for anyone that doesn't conform to the
government's idea of parenting.

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" wrote in message
news:QrudnfLy5sOfCLPanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"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]
"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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or are
you saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for
the
children?



For every step that the father's rights movement takes forward,
individuals
like chris take it two steps backwards.

How so?

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear?

That's exactly the mentality that fuels the present system and has given
the government the right to take away freedoms and liberties that they
will not give back. What I don't understand is the need to criminalize
this social problem when they have all the tools to extract large sums of
money from unwilling deadbeats which are few at best.

The only way to put controls on this system is to limit the government's
authority by decriminalizing all fathers and capping CS awards to a very
bare basics need of food and clothing. This guaranteed lifestyle rubbish
is socialist thinking and unrealistic. The only one that is profiting with
this system is the government, they even brag about it in their news
letter!

Put the power of giving & caring back in the hands of fathers that want to
take care of their own kids, so they can buy coats, Shoes, toys, ad any
other gifts because they want to and can afford to do so without the force
of big government threatening prison for anyone that doesn't conform to
the government's idea of parenting.

I absloutely agree!!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"animal02" wrote in message
news:KeudnUjyPpSAI7PanZ2dnUVZ_uGknZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"animal02" wrote in message
news:QrudnfLy5sOfCLPanZ2dnUVZ_uevnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...
snip

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.

So are you saying that the person who cares for the child supports
them
financially--and the other parent can walk away free and clear? Or
are
you saying that the parent who walked away will pay person caring for
the children?



For every step that the father's rights movement takes forward,
individuals like chris take it two steps backwards.

I cannot imagine a parent who has been a part of the child's life since
the birth of the child ever wanting to just walk away from the child.
And
I cannot imagine how anyone can say that it should be ok for a parent to
do so, if that is what they want. It boggles the mind.


Which is by people lik e Chris do so much damage to the progress. The
become the poster children for groups like NOW.
His insistence on "going nuclear" and the all or nothing approach not only
dooms himself to failure, but many along with him.

Your claims are false. It is your government people's principals that are
"going nuclear", not mine. And if you want to know who supports such
arrangement, consult a mirror.

--
[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
...

"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!

But it is not your worry if they enter into your neighbors' homes--you
only
tend to your own home, right?

"Generosity begins in the home". But to answer your question, I don't worry
about my neighbors' homes just like they don't worry about mine. Oh, but how
could we POSSIBLY think like this? Afterall, EVERYONE knows that it "takes a
village".......