Name change because parent not visiting child

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
egroups.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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the
situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the
fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Apparently not.
Phil #3


Ghostwriter

ghostwriter wrote:
CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
wrote:
Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia.

My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt
want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the
world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem
with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing
affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this
person who shares his last name. It's just sad.

Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be
best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he doesnt
really seem to care.

I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient
reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would be
very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont necessarily
need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer.

If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he
wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have
nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his son.

Ghostwriter


The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she
doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't
imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if he's
not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So
if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father
child-support services shill, then let's go...

Alright lets go,

I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling
a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took
your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP.

My ex's face, no. Experiences, most certainly.
I'm from a divorced family and also went through the family court
system as an adult in a different state than I currently reside.
Over the past few decades I have operated several family owned
businesses and have seen well over a thousand employees come and go.
Some of the employees were in high school, most in college or
older, and collectively with a wide range of family situations.
I would hear family issues personally or through management
of just about anything you can imagine.


My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to
wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers
them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments.
Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME
OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for
a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he
wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother
getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag,
THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

If the child's last name was causing a lot of teasing at school or
something then I could see the child being upset. However, if the child
was inquiring why his name is different then I'm very sure most mom's
could explain it in a way that the child wouldn't feel traumatized.
We both don't really know for sure what the mother's real intentions
are. But if I were to read her like a poker hand, it would be that
she is upset that the father doesn't visit and wants to get his
attention,
punish him for it, or a little of both. She also indicated her and the
father get along for the most part and you know the relationship could
easily be damaged. Maybe you think she should thank you for your prison
guard approach?

I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories
of
sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to
tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far
too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good
fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get
to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my
door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS,
they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior
to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into
poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their
child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather
than in my care.

It's just plain wrong to punish all fathers because of the horrible
acts of a few. Your logic is sick and twisted.

Interesting but the consequences of easing the current system would be
that those children near poverty would be pushed over the edge. Thats
the simple truth, you advocate a position that would likley cause the
neglect, physical and sexual abuse of at risk children and you have the
balls to say my logic is twisted.

You mean you cant figure out a way to help a very small group of
children without
punishing everyone? Did someone hit you in the head with a stupid
stick?


So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation
with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching.

Yes I could tell a 10 year old girl that the entire world shouldn't
have
be punished because of the terrible acts committed against her by her
daddy. I had a similar conversation several years back with a few
college
girls. One went on to live a very happy and normal life, the others
still struggle with it a bit.

I respect that (regardless if you care about my respect) it shows a
conistancy that most people lack. The next level of that question is
if you were faced with a child who was molested after your policies
forced her and her mother into poverty.

The consistency most people see is that my position doesn't require
supervision. You, on the otherhand, advocate and are involved in
pushing
fathers away from their families...and you seem to like the company of
other peoples' children. Children at the most risk are in foster care.

If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is
that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it
that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the
failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end
up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown.

Please by all means punish the actual abusers.

Hence my position that fathers rights must be coupled with social
services/enforcement.

That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could
be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few
months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father.

ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN
SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY
WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL.

Before the system was invented, broken homes were rare. Now
the more money the system gets, the bigger the problem gets. The
system needs fixing not the majority of fathers.

Correlation is not causation. Prior to the systems invention birth
control, woman's rights, high average education levels, minority
rights, etc simply didnt exist. Its a huge jump to say that the child
support isnt just a symptom of the larger problems. Frankly IMHO the
problem is greed and the inability to surrender your personal desires,
selfish revenge and greed certainly seem to be both the cause of the
problems in most families and the cause of most problems in divorces.
And selfishness and greed outdate child support by thousands of years.

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.

Did it ever occur to you that many children grow-up fatherless
because daddy was beaten down by government? It's time once again
to allow good fathers to be fathers.

Children grew up fatherless before government was invented, and yes I
can see that a portion of fathers are becoming resentful and opting out
of being fathers because of the system. Of course any father that
walks out because of what someone other than the kids did to him, might
qualify as a average father but good doesnt seem to be the right word.

Ghostwriter

PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st
foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life
and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I
am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases.

Best wishes to you and your family.

P.S. My comment about the mother asking for the name change
as an admission of her not wanting the father involved in
the childs life...it wasn't an attack on her, it was on you.

I missed it completely, I assumed you were just trying to button hole
my arguements which hardly qualifies as an attack. The OP stated that
father wasnt invovled, so the name change was more a official
recognition of an existing situation. But that would have required you
to have believed her, which as I stated before was a extremely unlikley
event.

Ghostwriter
Can't imagine the courts even wanting to get involved is such a petty
thing. But
I guess the father needs a good beating for whatever he may have done?
You're
an Idiot

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

I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust
them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with
consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few children,
I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made
clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy
are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it
was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and
were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not?
How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those
wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those
who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy
collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of NCPs
can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the
default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children.


I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of
fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives.

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

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

teachrmama wrote:
Considering what you wrote about not caring about the fathers that are
hurt
by the system, my wish for you is that you find yourself (or someone
you
love) in a situation where you have done nothing wrong, but you are
being
egregiously harmed because other people have done something wrong.
When
you
have actually experienced that which you are so casually dismissing as
being
worth the price, then, perhaps, you can come back and share.

Care is a difficult term, it is not that I do not care for fathers
rights it is simply that an increase in father's rights at the expense
of the most at risk population of children is an EXTREMELY poor trade.

Why does there have to be a tradeoff? Why can't the rights of men be
protected without harming children? Do you really think it is fair that
a
man is tricked into believing that he is a father, then forced to
continue
paying child support when it is proved that he is NOT the father? Do you
really think it is fair that a woman can hide the fact that a man is a
father until years after the birth of the child, then go back and demand
not
only current support, but arrearages for all the years the man did not
pay
when he was not aware of his fatherhood? Are these the unfairnesses that
you feel should continue? If so, why?

We as a society have to decide what things are more important to
protect. Frankly the interests of the children are far more important
than the interests of adults who engaged in consentual activity that
resulted in the child. The only blameless one in this equation is the
child.

Then you better darn well find a way to make sure that money that is paid
for the support of the child is used ONLY for the support of THAT CHILD. I
could tell you horror stories about the way the monies have been spent by
some--in 4 different states, so it's not just a single example. Make sure
*the children* are actually receiving all they are due, or your system is
useless.



The point of arrears and false paternity are good ones, and courts
should take them into account but compared to the interests of the
child they are small potatoes.

To you, perhaps. Have you ever heard a judge tell you that your children
are irrelevant? I have. A woman with whom my husband had had a one night
stand before we even met announced that he was the father of one of her many
chuildren (by many men) when the girl was almost 13. (She is now almost 18
and my husband still grieves about missing her growing up years) The state
she lives in wanted arrearages back to birth--13 years worth, at his current
salary. The state we live in only permits arrearages back 2 years from the
finding of paternity. BUT the judge said that our 2 children, our beloved
daughters, were totally irrelevant in the setting of child support. Now,
ghost, WHY are our children irrelevant? Because the other woman chose to
deprive child of father and father of child? Is that fair? Our children
are equally innocent to the older child. Why should the system have a right
to say that some children get and some children don't count? Do you really
think that the issue is small potatoes to the innocent subsequent children
forced to live in poverty by your beloved system?


Laws have started to appear the
recognize the rights of stepparents and grandparents, and with them
come the unwillingness to allow non-bio men who have acted as fathers
to simple exit the picture, even when they were acting as fathers under
false pretense. The stupidity of the mother does not annul the child
rights, and that applies to arrears and all the rest of it.

So you are in favor of men becoming slaves to women? It's ok for the woman
to lie and cheat, because the man will be forced to support her anyway.
Whew! And you think a woman who behaves in that vile a manner will actually
spend "child support" on her children?



I personally favor joint custody, with obligation to meet costs based
on the relative income of the individuals. But my disapproval with the
systems failures does not extend to dismantling it without a clear idea
of what is going to take its place, and so far nothing seems to be put
forward other than libertarian pipe-dreams.

How about using the system to do what it was intended to do--go after the
real deadbeats, and leave everyone else alone.



I would wish for you to work with some victimized children, then come
back and tell us if you getting rid of your obligations is worth their
fathers escaping their's.

Well, Ghostwriter, you have your wish. I have worked with such children.
And still do. This year I have 2 such children in my classroom. I don't
think that money is going to solve the problems. I think that only
education is going to do that. Not the education of the children in
school--although that is also important. But the education of the
mothers
who are making choices that are not necessarily good for their children.
Help the mothers help themselves--don't just throw money at them and see
that as a solution. I could tell you stories about what I have seen that
would curl your eyebrows. And I don;t think that money has ever been the
solution. Neither is taking away the rights of the innocent. I do not
think you have thought this through thoroughly enough.

Everyone's rights exist in competition with everyones elses, nothing is
going to change that. Like I have been saying the whole time fathers
rights must be coupled with social services or else you will see an
increased rate of families failing. Thats not about guilt or innocence
its about placing value on those kids.

How about TAKING AWAY A LOT OF THE MOTHER'S RIGHTS? Mother's rights and
children's rights should *not* be coupled together. The reason mothers make
some of the horrid choices they do is because they know that they are tied
to their children, and their children will always be protected. Take that
away, and see how quickly chjoices change. STOP protecting mothers from
their own idiocy!


I dont doubt that we are both capable of telling stories that would the
other sick. But money would certainly get those 2 kids of yours in to
see a doctor, therapist, counciler, etc. Money would mean Mom would be
at work less and be more able to supervise and assist in that therapy.
Money might enable Mom to finish a degree and purchase housing in a
better neighborhood. No money isnt a cure-all but it does open options
that dont exist otherwise. And yes money might just allow Mom to buy
drugs for herself and the abusive boyfriend.

There is already social service money available for any medical needs. Mom
doesn't work any more than anyone else--and less than I do, BTW. And I have
kids to care for, too! Your trick is going to be getting mom to spend the
money on the kids, and I don;t think you have come up with a solution to
that yet.


Education is always a wonderful idea, parenting education for high
schoolers, optional education for new parents, court ordered education
for people seeking divorce, court ordered education for both parties
post divorce would be a great start.

We do agree on that!

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

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

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the
situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the
fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about
Stalin, then read it again.

As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian
means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the
worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of
the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is
the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black
and white worldview.

With all due respect, I've not a clue what you're rambling about.


Ghostwriter

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



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.



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?

"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
egroups.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.

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. 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.

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.

Feeble, to say the least.


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.

How about each parent (since each is 50% of the total "parent") have the
child 50% of the time; then there will be no CP/NCP. Then each can EQUALLY
be charged with neglect. Gee, what a novel concept. But then again, last I
checked, a CP is a CP by CHOICE!


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.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the
situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the
fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

Apparently not.
Phil #3


Ghostwriter

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

I'm a teacher. I fully trust my students until they prove I *can't* trust
them. If I started out every school year squashing every kid with
consequences for *possible* actions that *might* be taken by a few
children,
I would have a thoroughly miserable class. Instead, expectations are made
clear from the start, and *only* those who prove themselves untrustworthy
are given consequences. Would you want your child in a classroom where it
was made clear day after day that they were expected to try to shirk, and
were getting the consequences whether they ever actually shirked or not?
How about if the system is used for what it was meant for? Go after those
wh refuse to take any responsibility--not go after everyone, and get those
who would pay anyway, so you can use those to bolster their crappy
collection percentages? Wouldn't that be better? The vast majority of
NCPs
can be trusted to support their children. And if joint custody became the
default choice, we'd see even greater benefits for the children.


I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

ONLY for those who would shirk. Not for the greatest majority of
fathers--who fight to stay in their children's lives.

Indeed. But bear in mind, you are debating someone who hates liberty!

"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
egroups.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.

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.

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.





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?




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'

"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. 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. "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.


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. 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? 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.



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!!!!!!