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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#291
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#292
|
|||
|
|||
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 ... "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? |
#293
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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. |
#294
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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. |
#295
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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. |
#296
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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. |
#297
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [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? |
#298
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
"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!! |
#299
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [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. |
#300
|
|||
|
|||
deadbeat and enabler list (another thread that went off topic)
-- [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"....... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CT: New Haven witch hunt for deadbeat fathers - notice that NO mothers were on their list... | Dusty | Child Support | 1 | April 5th 05 06:37 AM |
Guest Speaker: Dr. Rita Laws Topic: Topic: Why Kids Lie and What We Can Do About It | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | March 2nd 04 05:42 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | General | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |
Waiting list for POFAK mailing list | Herself | Breastfeeding | 3 | October 15th 03 06:26 PM |