Name change because parent not visiting child

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message

legroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote
in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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



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

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


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

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

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


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

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

"Wanting" and "doing" are two separate things.

Yes, they are. Most adult know this. Your point?

That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children does not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length



more snippage



Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to do
so.
Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?

Perhaps for the same reason that your system singles out unmarried fathers
concerning "child support".

It isn't *my* system.

Lay off these guys and reciprocally the mothers
will be left alone.

Ah - banish the CS systems that are in place, and you stop bashing CP moms?

Simple. But then again, why do so. Mothers are already
exempt from such accountability.

No we're not. We're required to provide the same financial accounting to
the CS system that the fathers are.



I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another, with
all
the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say that
CS
is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important to/for
the
child?

Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have to
make the decisions.

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.

Virtually every NCP parent (meaning father) is. And that is what this
forum
is about.

No it isn't. This forum is about child support.
It's not a forum about the decision making process.


Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making process
as
divorced parents do.

"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their
own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the system on
BOTH
sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't work
in
the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the bit to
take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in time or in
money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that all parents,
100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense obligations
just
doesn't seem to address this reality.

So which parent do you suggest be denied custody from the start, and why?

Neither. I've never suggested that a parent be denied custody, except in
cases of documented and proven abuse.

and more snippage


Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the
abusers
of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when
you
slam CP's as you are when you promote symspathy for NCP's.

The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing
married
parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced parents -
isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past? That all
parents
need to be treated the same?

Indeed! So let's start by eliminating the "child support" industry.

How does denying children support from their parents address this?



There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why should
divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the point, and
you
know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above
that?
That was my point.

(see above)

Perhaps you should.

and more snippage



THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility that
such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions of
children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones who
are
having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own children are now
forced into poverty.

Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children costs
money

(shadup Chris, no one is buying your idea that you can raise kids without
a
single dime - the hospital bill to deliver the child, alone, blows your
theory right out the window).

Then it follows that money existed before children. You buy that?

There have always been monetary systems in place - check your history.



Since it costs money to raise children,

No it doesn't.

Yes, Chris, it does. You are all alone out there in this insistance that it
doesn't.


someone needs to pay that money.
That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

(and no, we're not talking about the parents who have released their
child
for adoption, and we're not talking about someone's
great-great-great-great
grandparents, without whom the current child would never exist)

That's right. We're talking about the child's father without whom the
current child would never exist. Why?

Why what?



Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in hell
you
want to call it.

You might want to inform your "family court" people about this because
apparently they are not aware of it.

It's not *my* court, Chris.


Some people get so hung up on the label for something,
they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question their
wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't. I find
it
almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a damn how the
money was spent while married now want to micromanage their ex's
financials,
completely overlooking that her checkbook is no longer his business, post
divorce.

Nice twist. The issue is the taking of their money by force, NOT
voluntarily
relinquishing it.

How odd - I thought the issue was originally about a "name change because
parent not visiting child"



Get over it.

My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot, in
the
snow, uphill both ways apparently).

He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even
tried
to sue me in civil court.

Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far
less
expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me,
therefore
you try to control my checkbook.

Correction: You are attempting to extort my cash, so I will attempt to
defend it.

I am? How odd, I didn't realize I was doing *anything* to you.



Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with it,
like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids?

Of course! For the children............

A decent relationship? Don't you think that's just a wee bit more important
than ranting and raving for years about the same things, over and over?


The ones
who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at least then,
you'd
have tangible results that make you feel as though you've made a positive
change in your corner of the world.

What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the same
things over and over, year after year, with no change after years and
years
of it.

Then why do you do so?

I don't.



Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use of
the word irrelevant?

[/soapbox]

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message

legroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote


nsnippage


That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children does
not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

Well, if that's true, then NCP fathers wanting the best for their children
doesn't necessarily translate into them doing so, either.

So what do you suggest, to make sure that the best for the children is
actually done?

And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending one
thin dime.
Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending one
thin dime.
Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.
Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.
Electricity and heating - please explain how you provide these utilities for
children without spending one thin dime.
Educational materials - please explain how you provide education materials
(things like paper, pens or pencils, etc) for children without spending one
thin dime.

Thank you - I'm sure an awful lot of cash-strapped parents will appreciate
you explaining how this can be done, so we can all start saving some money -
after all, the same concepts should work as well for adults as children, no?

Go for it, Chris - you made the claim, perhaps it's time you backed it up.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs is
she forced to pay?
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the more
money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs is
she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is, I
have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses, to
clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and dental
expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their current
adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot to read this paragraph:

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



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



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

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


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

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

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

Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually
spending the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to
do so. Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?


Possibly because the money comes from a third individual ostensibly to
be spent in support of the children only.

I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another,
with all the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe
to say that CS is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child -
and weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important
to/for the child?

Correction: the money is being spent on the child AND the CP, which is
the point you seem to be missing.


Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the
decision making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent
to have to make the decisions.

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making
process.

Only a few MILLION each year. Petty. Not worth mentioning. :^

Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the
other parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the
same proportions on married parents default out of the decision making
process as divorced parents do.

And for those, would that not be those cases where TM and others agree
it would not work. Forcing parents into the socialist ideal of utopian
family life is not freedom, justice or sane.



"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the
system on BOTH sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't
work in the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at
the bit to take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either
in time or in money. It's just not reality. So your starting point
that all parents, 100% of them, should start with joint
custody/care/expense obligations just doesn't seem to address this
reality.

Oh ****! Could you lack any more abilty to think in logical terms?
Try to understand that the starting point is not necessarily the end
result.
This has been explained to you so many times, it has become obvious that
your desire is to make mothers the parent, fathers an ATM and **** on
the kids.




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

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

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

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

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

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

Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the
abusers of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when
you slam CP's as you are when you promote symspathy for NCP's.

She stated a fact: "And what it actually does is ensure ongoing support
of the mother, who has no legal responsibility of any kind to provide
more than bare bones support for her children. She gets to spend the
rest however she wants to."
It wasn't an attack on CPs in general but (not at all) odd that you
would take it as such.


The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing
married parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced
parents - isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past?
That all parents need to be treated the same?

Both married and divorced parents should have the same obligations and
responsibilities, yes. That would mean that dad is just a liable to
spend time with and instruct the child as the mother and the mother
would be liable to spend from her resources as the father UNLESS they
came to a different and mutual agreement.


There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why
should divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the
point, and you know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above
that? That was my point.

You don't have a point as long as the fact is that only NCPs are held to
a standard that other parents are not.
I am sure her point is that holding only NCP parents to a standard to
which other parents are not held to is unfair and does more to harm the
children in the long run. If NCPs are to be singled out for special
treatment, the CP in the same case should be subject to the same
scrutiny.





The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else
I have
ever heard.

Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want
to
support their children but when they are removed by force and
prevented
from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with
relative
accuracy. The current child support system is the problem;
parents not
fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large
part
results from the problem.

Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but
I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade.

It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the
children's
needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for
anything at
all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is
honest, which
many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be
used for
or by the children, more would be willing to play the game
according to
the rules.

Almost all judges dismissed that crap logic a long time ago, "for
the
child" is impossible to define and begging for a thousand
challanges on
ever little detail.

Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you
have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I
will never
willing support that.

Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the
court
to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their
children?
This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government
mandate
(court order), have the ability to spend less than the official
guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the
children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard
in any
state.

No, I think that having a child and then allowing the household to
fail
invites the interference of outsiders. The government mandate is
likley
far higher than necessary, but at least some mandated amount is
necessary since a custodial parent can be charged with neglect
whereas
a NCP can not.

On the contrary, it is very difficult to charge the custodial
parent with neglect if she feeds and clothes the children even
minimally. Charing the NCP an exorbitant rate does not in any way
insure a standard of living to the child. And it doesn't take much
to avoid neglect charges. Believe me, I have seen some
lollapaloozers in the course of my career. I know how little is
necessary to avoid a neglect label!


Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support
investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the
spectrum will
get worst.
And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man
does
without.

Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most
choose to
fully support their families, including children, without court
orders.
By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP,
equality
reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85%
of
children raised without a father present in the home develop
behavorial
problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1%
are from
single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from
fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of
households,
single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes
constitute 59%.
The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more
likely to be
in juvenile prisons than children of single father households.
Children
of single father households are 35% less likely than the children
of two
parent households to be in juvenile prisons.

Your missing some data there, what percentage of single mother
households are below poverty, what percentage of single father
households. Poverty in childhood correlates overwhelmingly to
incarceration, both in childhood and in adulthood. That would
suggest
that more child support to get the single mother households above
poverty would be the solution not less. Somehow I dont think that
is
what you were trying to say.

But taking money from an already impoverished father is not going
to make a substantial difference in the poverty level of the
children. They'll *still* be living in poverty! And just how many
separated families do you think there are where the father is
living high on the hog, while mother and children languish in
poverty?

How many separated families do you think there are where the mother
is living high on the hog, while the father languishes in poverty?

Once you get past the melodrama, the answer is 'probably very few in
either scenario'

THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility
that such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions
of children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones
who are having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own
children are now forced into poverty.

Tunnel-vision or selective?


Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children
costs money

(shadup Chris, no one is buying your idea that you can raise kids
without a single dime - the hospital bill to deliver the child, alone,
blows your theory right out the window).

While I don't necessarily share Chris' theory about raising children
without money (in today's world with all the toys and gizmos), the idea
that babies can only be delivered in a sterile, hospital setting is a
recent development. Millions of children were, are and have been born in
places such as fields, homes and even cars, most without ill effects.
The results of using hospitals have been a decrease in infant mortality,
however, quite possibly due to proximity to machines, medicines and
procedures not readily available elsewhere.


Since it costs money to raise children, someone needs to pay that
money. That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

Then simply make the requirement equal. Simple really.


(and no, we're not talking about the parents who have released their
child for adoption, and we're not talking about someone's
great-great-great-great grandparents, without whom the current child
would never exist)

Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in
hell you want to call it. Some people get so hung up on the label for
something, they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

I can only guess that you feel NCPs should be forced to pay the CP
regardless of the time/money spent directly on the children. That does
fit with your posting persona. However, if the idea is to benefit the
children, both parents providing a varying amount of time and money to
the children is best but alas, not always best for the CP.
You seem to be thinking that it's fine for the NCP to have more time
with the children as long as the flow of money is not affected.


My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question
their wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't.
I find it almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a
damn how the money was spent while married now want to micromanage
their ex's financials, completely overlooking that her checkbook is no
longer his business, post divorce.

So what are you trying to say, that a married man who is the main earner
in a family setting does not enjoy any more of the lifestyle of the
family than the divorced man who is paying C$?


Get over it.

Get real.


My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

This isn't about YOU.


He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot,
in the snow, uphill both ways apparently).

This isn't about YOU.


He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even
tried to sue me in civil court.

This isn't about YOU.


Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far
less expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

This isn't about YOU.


So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me,
therefore you try to control my checkbook.

But you miss the point (intentionally) that only the CP controls
spending and that includes the money taken by force from the NCP that
doesn't have to be spent on the children entirely. You also forget that
the intent is supposed to benefit the children. Current C$ does not.


Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with
it, like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids?
The ones who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at
least then, you'd have tangible results that make you feel as though
you've made a positive change in your corner of the world.

In other words, Teachermama, enjoy it since it's inevitable. )


What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the
same things over and over, year after year, with no change after years
and years of it.

Like you


Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use
of the word irrelevant?

Does it matter?
You can't make an unfair and unrealistic thing into fair and realistic
by ignoring it.
You take TM to task for doing exactly what you've been doing, which is
how pitiful your life is because of your ex.You've been here about a
decade doing similar things under different names, right?
Phil #3
[snip]

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more
money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs is
she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know is, I
have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses, to
clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and dental
expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their current
adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Here's some advice on how other mothers handle your dilemma:

Make the child get a job.

When CS stops, start charging the child rent.

Stop buying food they like so they eat out more.

Force the child to do more around the home - Turn them into unpaid domestic
workers.

Tell them to buy their own clothes.

Ask the child to buy stuff for you and then never repay them.

As you can see, the free money subsidy doesn't "magically stop when they hit
their 18th birthday." The trick is to turn previous expenses into an income
source. Just talk to some other former CP mothers. They can give you lots
of hints on how to turn your children into money generating assets.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

nsnippage


That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children does
not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

Well, if that's true, then NCP fathers wanting the best for their children
doesn't necessarily translate into them doing so, either.

So what do you suggest, to make sure that the best for the children is
actually done?

And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one
thin dime.

TANF. Free daycare.

Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending
one
thin dime.

Food Stamps. WIC. Food Banks. School breakfast and lunch programs. (Some
fo these programs allow mothers and below school aged children to accompany
their school aged children to eat breakfast at school.)

Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.

State Health Plan. Refuge Medical Programs.

Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.

Hand-me-downs. Church and other support group programs.

Electricity and heating - please explain how you provide these utilities
for
children without spending one thin dime.

TANF.

Educational materials - please explain how you provide education materials
(things like paper, pens or pencils, etc) for children without spending
one
thin dime.

School subsidy programs for the needy. Teen Parent Programs


Thank you - I'm sure an awful lot of cash-strapped parents will appreciate
you explaining how this can be done, so we can all start saving some
money -
after all, the same concepts should work as well for adults as children,
no?

Go for it, Chris - you made the claim, perhaps it's time you backed it up.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in


And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one thin dime.

Children's share is less than 5% of your total cost that you have to pay
anyway!

Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending
one thin dime.

Cooking for one or 3, minimal difference!

Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.

Payed by Employer!


Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.

How may pairs of jeans can you buy in one month? Ever hear the word no?

Electricity and heating - please explain how you provide these utilities
for children without spending one thin dime.

Don't be rediculous, you would be paying this regardless if you had children
or not!

Educational materials - please explain how you provide education materials
(things like paper, pens or pencils, etc) for children without spending
one thin dime.

Note books & binders, give them $20 bucks, the rest is on them.

Thank you - I'm sure an awful lot of cash-strapped parents will appreciate
you explaining how this can be done, so we can all start saving some
money - after all, the same concepts should work as well for adults as
children, no?

Hmmm, my father supported 3 kids on one blue collar wage, what's your
problem?

"P.Fritz" wrote in

He makes the classic socialist arguement that one select groups "right"
trump annother groups / individual's rights. Which of course, is
completely wrong.

I guess it's OK with him and others of his Ilk that I should be deported
because I can't come up with $55,000. I have to lose my job, my home and
friends & family because this greedy bitch can't see past the $$$ that the
Friends of the court have promised her. She was receiving $800/mth until
immigration revoked my authorization to work in this country. Nobody said
these people were smart!