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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Phil: You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of $ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system. It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject. For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just that I did leave. Fair? Not in the least bit.... Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you... it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. Agreed..... And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets, you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get it? |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you... it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. Agreed..... And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets, you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get it? |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you... it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. Agreed..... And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets, you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get it? I did not say single mothers are "bad." What I said was children raised in single mother households are more at risk to become troubled children. Let's go back to the apple analogy and not confuse the issue with a second analogy. We know that over 80% of the worms found in apples are found in the 85 apple inventory with similar apple growing techniques. We know that less than 20% of the worms found in apples are found in the other 315 apples because they are grown using different techniques. It seems pretty obvious that something is wrong with the way the 85 apples are grown, since they have such a high incidence of worms per apple. We know that over 80% of troubled children are raised in the 85 single mother households. We know that less than 20% of troubled children come from the 315 households where a father is present. If over 80% of a problem is found in mother only households there is something about the way these children are being raised that is putting them at risk. If father only households coupled with two-parent households produce less than 20% of troubled children, it is not a giant leap to say when fathers a present society produces fewer troubled children. And conversely, when mothers raise children in mother headed households without a father present, the risks for children to become troubled children goes up substantially. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message ink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you... it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. Agreed..... And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets, you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get it? I did not say single mothers are "bad." What I said was children raised in single mother households are more at risk to become troubled children. Let's go back to the apple analogy and not confuse the issue with a second analogy. We know that over 80% of the worms found in apples are found in the 85 apple inventory with similar apple growing techniques. We know that less than 20% of the worms found in apples are found in the other 315 apples because they are grown using different techniques. It seems pretty obvious that something is wrong with the way the 85 apples are grown, since they have such a high incidence of worms per apple. We know that over 80% of troubled children are raised in the 85 single mother households. We know that less than 20% of troubled children come from the 315 households where a father is present. If over 80% of a problem is found in mother only households there is something about the way these children are being raised that is putting them at risk. If father only households coupled with two-parent households produce less than 20% of troubled children, it is not a giant leap to say when fathers a present society produces fewer troubled children. And conversely, when mothers raise children in mother headed households without a father present, the risks for children to become troubled children goes up substantially. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... snip A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad? Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- snip -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. -------------------- And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's attention to something more positive? WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. ---------------- And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations. ------------------- My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. -------------- She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose. Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments. Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? What? Women can't work and earn money? Women can't take children on outings? Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. ------------------- Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life ------------------------- No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own choices. A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent. Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do so. BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect world it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we don't live in a perfect world do we? So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay? -------------------- but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. --------------- What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of cs to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for you? Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the country who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay their cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses of any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those things. Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise a child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I know a girl who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200 is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a week? come on.... $15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS. Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts! --------------------- This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... snip A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad? Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- snip -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. -------------------- And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's attention to something more positive? WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? To make this story as short as possible because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child support etc. ---------------- And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations. ------------------- My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the child, providing clothes or moral support) Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc. -------------- She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose. Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments. Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? What? Women can't work and earn money? Women can't take children on outings? Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. ------------------- Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life ------------------------- No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own choices. A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent. Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do so. BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect world it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we don't live in a perfect world do we? So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay? -------------------- but then make a law that Dad also has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad. --------------- What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of cs to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for you? Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the country who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay their cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses of any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those things. Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise a child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I know a girl who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200 is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a week? come on.... $15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS. Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts! --------------------- This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter. However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority. On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that 70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead, they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart." There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50, regardless of which spouse created the wealth. You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband. One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part, men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating the impression that they were innocent parties. So there's a one-sided propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the "see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument. ME wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Phil: You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of $ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system. It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject. For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just that I did leave. Fair? Not in the least bit.... Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter. However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority. On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that 70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead, they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart." There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50, regardless of which spouse created the wealth. You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband. One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part, men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating the impression that they were innocent parties. So there's a one-sided propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the "see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument. ME wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Phil: You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of $ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system. It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject. For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just that I did leave. Fair? Not in the least bit.... Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter. However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority. Things are alot different there than here...Here to modify a court ordered amount for child support due to changed circumstances (conditions do apply but with your case you would have fell into this) all you have to do is pay $15 for a modification hearing and go in before a hearing officer and go over the change circumstances and if no agreement made one will be ordered by going over income and expenses. (there is a long long list of what they count and what they dont for both parties...about 6 pages worth of paperwork for each party alike, and gathering the proof of income and expenses) On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that 70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead, they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart." 'we just grew apart' is not right in my eyes.... There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50, regardless of which spouse created the wealth. We got a 50/50 split--he got 2 cars and the house--I got the car with the payment and all of the debt (credit cards etc)---he paid for the divorce, I couldnt afford an attorney--Lessons learned here... You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband. I got the blame in this case....noone cared why I left-just that I left.... One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part, men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating the impression that they were innocent parties. Agreed So there's a one-sided propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the "see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument. He didnt 'make' me leave. I left because he broke our vows. Yes, I left because of something he did, but noone cares about why I left just that I did. ME wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Phil: You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of $ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system. It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject. For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just that I did leave. Fair? Not in the least bit.... Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|