Name change because parent not visiting child

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?


Why is it that the libertarian arguement always comes down to versions
of "that problem can be figured out" without ever actually giving a
solution other than inspecific assurances. If not knowing how to
figure out the problem makes me stupid then I'm stupid. So now that I
have admitted my stupidity, you want to let me in on the solution.

The best situation I can envision would be a CASA (court appointed
special advocate) over a small number of child support orders with the
power (subject to review) to garnish wages, adjust the payments
according to emergency need, insure visitation was being honored on
both sides, and exercise dispassionate knowledge over the situation,
upto ordering someone jailed on contempt. That would allow greater
sensitivity to changing situations and allow the CASA to visit the
children in each home several times a year. The CASA would also be
able to sign off of the situation and allow the NCP a go to person to
discuss problems without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer
and filing. Child support accounts could be set up by individual banks
and monitored by the CASA rather than the nightmare accounting system
that currently exists. The problem of course is that such a system
would be expensive at least until the cost-savings to social services
and the elimination of most of the child support industy. Even if the
CASA can handle a caseload of 30(allowing a day per month per family),
if they make $60K (45K salary+15K benifits) thats $2K/year per family,
more likley $4K after logistics personnel are accounted for. I suppose
you could save money by allowing a situation to be certified so that
visits were only required 2/year unless conflict arose, and then
raising the caseload. But an individual CASA would be almost
impossible to remove from a case and would have the power to make your
life hell if they wished. Selection of a CASA would be by list with
both parties striking off names until one remained.

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.

The slantwise reference to pedophilia was rather pathetic of you. Prior
to me ever getting a child that child has had a case worker recommned
for removal and a judge agree, usally after extensive involvement of
CPS trying to help the family or a crisis situation. The fathers are
so seldom involved with the kids by the time I meet them that talking
about their fathers is a joke, accusing me of helping push them away is
simply laughable. The fathers that are in the picture are usally decent
guys but almost always addicts. Out of 21 placements representing 11
families (I take mostly sibiling groups) a father has been present 4
times, 1 of those 4 was clean and not abusive. Thats one father out of
about 20 men (most sibilings are step-brother/sisters), and his
daughter was in care for one week because his ex-wife had hired a
babysitter and the 3yo had wandered down the road after the babysitter
had fallen asleep, the judge put her in care as an emergency, and it
took a week to have children services verify the situation and the
judge to send her home. Go to your local adoption website and take a
look at the number of kids diagnosised with things like post-tramatic
stress disorder and radical attachment disorder. Better yet go get
certified as a foster parent, because you dont have a clue about us
currently.

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.

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

A judge has to sign off on any name change, adult or child. And I see
you belief that a fit parent should be free to make decisions in their
child's life doesnt extend to CPs.

Ghostwriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in

The best situation I can envision would be a CASA (court appointed
special advocate) over a small number of child support orders with the
power (subject to review) to garnish wages, adjust the payments
according to emergency need,

So we presently have wage garnishment for 60% of a man's takehome pay and if
he gets laid off he goes to jail. Is this cool with you?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all
on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money
appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might
be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief
CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the
NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none
of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to
explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast majority
you
cited?

Many more than 50% and you know what I mean. A person has the ability to
speak figuratively without being exact about some quantity. It's the same
thing as you saying I shouldn't castigate "all CP mothers." Your word
games
make you look foolish. How many fewer than "all" do you mean?

I've seen very few on this board ASKED if they would provide an accounting,
aside from me.



And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to
the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

NCP's have a mandatory requirement to provide a financial accounting of
their incomes and expenses to CP's. There is nothing voluntary about it.

Ya mean my ex is supposed to be providing me with an accounting? How odd,
he hasn't done that in 9 years.

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


Why is it that the libertarian arguement always comes down to versions
of "that problem can be figured out" without ever actually giving a
solution other than inspecific assurances. If not knowing how to
figure out the problem makes me stupid then I'm stupid. So now that I
have admitted my stupidity, you want to let me in on the solution.

The best situation I can envision would be a CASA (court appointed
special advocate) over a small number of child support orders with the
power (subject to review) to garnish wages, adjust the payments
according to emergency need, insure visitation was being honored on
both sides, and exercise dispassionate knowledge over the situation,
upto ordering someone jailed on contempt. That would allow greater
sensitivity to changing situations and allow the CASA to visit the
children in each home several times a year. The CASA would also be
able to sign off of the situation and allow the NCP a go to person to
discuss problems without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer
and filing. Child support accounts could be set up by individual banks
and monitored by the CASA rather than the nightmare accounting system
that currently exists. The problem of course is that such a system
would be expensive at least until the cost-savings to social services
and the elimination of most of the child support industy. Even if the
CASA can handle a caseload of 30(allowing a day per month per family),
if they make $60K (45K salary+15K benifits) thats $2K/year per family,
more likley $4K after logistics personnel are accounted for. I suppose
you could save money by allowing a situation to be certified so that
visits were only required 2/year unless conflict arose, and then
raising the caseload. But an individual CASA would be almost
impossible to remove from a case and would have the power to make your
life hell if they wished. Selection of a CASA would be by list with
both parties striking off names until one remained.

Why on earth do you think it is ok to subject private individuals to such
government interference when no crime has been committed? For the life of
me, I can't fathom why you think someone doing a "job" is better at taking
care of the children than the parents of the children. Do you also think
there should be these social workers out inspecting the homes of married
parents? You seem to have a very deep-seated distrust of people--except
people who represent the government. There should be no interference at all
unless one or both of the parents are operating outside of the law. Period.



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.

The slantwise reference to pedophilia was rather pathetic of you. Prior
to me ever getting a child that child has had a case worker recommned
for removal and a judge agree, usally after extensive involvement of
CPS trying to help the family or a crisis situation. The fathers are
so seldom involved with the kids by the time I meet them that talking
about their fathers is a joke, accusing me of helping push them away is
simply laughable. The fathers that are in the picture are usally decent
guys but almost always addicts. Out of 21 placements representing 11
families (I take mostly sibiling groups) a father has been present 4
times, 1 of those 4 was clean and not abusive. Thats one father out of
about 20 men (most sibilings are step-brother/sisters), and his
daughter was in care for one week because his ex-wife had hired a
babysitter and the 3yo had wandered down the road after the babysitter
had fallen asleep, the judge put her in care as an emergency, and it
took a week to have children services verify the situation and the
judge to send her home. Go to your local adoption website and take a
look at the number of kids diagnosised with things like post-tramatic
stress disorder and radical attachment disorder. Better yet go get
certified as a foster parent, because you dont have a clue about us
currently.

The fact that the children you come in contact with represent the segment of
society that might need supervision does not in any way indicate that all
divorced/never-married couples need such superbvision. It is unfair to tar
everyone with the brush of you negative experiences.



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.

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

A judge has to sign off on any name change, adult or child. And I see
you belief that a fit parent should be free to make decisions in their
child's life doesnt extend to CPs.

Well, there are 2 parents. Some things require a decision to be made by
both.

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"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.

Most people in this conversation are espousing a libertarian point of
view on the subject, I am espousing a composite between a liberal and
populist point of view(which from the libertarian point of view looks
socialist). If you notice phil's reply above you can see that just
because you havent realized the underlieing issues doesnt mean I am
rambling.

The mere fact that you identify with liberalism puts you on the losing end
of the debate.


Ghostwriter

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


Why is it that the libertarian arguement always comes down to versions
of "that problem can be figured out" without ever actually giving a
solution other than inspecific assurances. If not knowing how to
figure out the problem makes me stupid then I'm stupid. So now that I
have admitted my stupidity, you want to let me in on the solution.

The best situation I can envision would be a CASA (court appointed
special advocate) over a small number of child support orders with the
power (subject to review) to garnish wages, adjust the payments
according to emergency need, insure visitation was being honored on
both sides, and exercise dispassionate knowledge over the situation,
upto ordering someone jailed on contempt. That would allow greater
sensitivity to changing situations and allow the CASA to visit the
children in each home several times a year. The CASA would also be
able to sign off of the situation and allow the NCP a go to person to
discuss problems without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer
and filing. Child support accounts could be set up by individual banks
and monitored by the CASA rather than the nightmare accounting system
that currently exists. The problem of course is that such a system
would be expensive at least until the cost-savings to social services
and the elimination of most of the child support industy. Even if the
CASA can handle a caseload of 30(allowing a day per month per family),
if they make $60K (45K salary+15K benifits) thats $2K/year per family,
more likley $4K after logistics personnel are accounted for. I suppose
you could save money by allowing a situation to be certified so that
visits were only required 2/year unless conflict arose, and then
raising the caseload. But an individual CASA would be almost
impossible to remove from a case and would have the power to make your
life hell if they wished. Selection of a CASA would be by list with
both parties striking off names until one remained.

Viva la VILLAGE!


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.

The slantwise reference to pedophilia was rather pathetic of you. Prior
to me ever getting a child that child has had a case worker recommned
for removal and a judge agree, usally after extensive involvement of
CPS trying to help the family or a crisis situation. The fathers are
so seldom involved with the kids by the time I meet them that talking
about their fathers is a joke, accusing me of helping push them away is
simply laughable. The fathers that are in the picture are usally decent
guys but almost always addicts. Out of 21 placements representing 11
families (I take mostly sibiling groups) a father has been present 4
times, 1 of those 4 was clean and not abusive. Thats one father out of
about 20 men (most sibilings are step-brother/sisters), and his
daughter was in care for one week because his ex-wife had hired a
babysitter and the 3yo had wandered down the road after the babysitter
had fallen asleep, the judge put her in care as an emergency, and it
took a week to have children services verify the situation and the
judge to send her home. Go to your local adoption website and take a
look at the number of kids diagnosised with things like post-tramatic
stress disorder and radical attachment disorder. Better yet go get
certified as a foster parent, because you dont have a clue about us
currently.

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.

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

A judge has to sign off on any name change, adult or child. And I see
you belief that a fit parent should be free to make decisions in their
child's life doesnt extend to CPs.

Ghostwriter

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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


Why is it that the libertarian arguement always comes down to versions
of "that problem can be figured out" without ever actually giving a
solution other than inspecific assurances. If not knowing how to
figure out the problem makes me stupid then I'm stupid. So now that I
have admitted my stupidity, you want to let me in on the solution.

The best situation I can envision would be a CASA (court appointed
special advocate) over a small number of child support orders with the
power (subject to review) to garnish wages, adjust the payments
according to emergency need, insure visitation was being honored on
both sides, and exercise dispassionate knowledge over the situation,
upto ordering someone jailed on contempt. That would allow greater
sensitivity to changing situations and allow the CASA to visit the
children in each home several times a year. The CASA would also be
able to sign off of the situation and allow the NCP a go to person to
discuss problems without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer
and filing. Child support accounts could be set up by individual banks
and monitored by the CASA rather than the nightmare accounting system
that currently exists. The problem of course is that such a system
would be expensive at least until the cost-savings to social services
and the elimination of most of the child support industy. Even if the
CASA can handle a caseload of 30(allowing a day per month per family),
if they make $60K (45K salary+15K benifits) thats $2K/year per family,
more likley $4K after logistics personnel are accounted for. I suppose
you could save money by allowing a situation to be certified so that
visits were only required 2/year unless conflict arose, and then
raising the caseload. But an individual CASA would be almost
impossible to remove from a case and would have the power to make your
life hell if they wished. Selection of a CASA would be by list with
both parties striking off names until one remained.

Why on earth do you think it is ok to subject private individuals to such
government interference when no crime has been committed? For the life of
me, I can't fathom why you think someone doing a "job" is better at taking
care of the children than the parents of the children.

That's because you don't understand Hitlery's philosophy: "it takes a
village".

Do you also think
there should be these social workers out inspecting the homes of married
parents? You seem to have a very deep-seated distrust of people--except
people who represent the government. There should be no interference at
all
unless one or both of the parents are operating outside of the law.
Period.



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.

The slantwise reference to pedophilia was rather pathetic of you. Prior
to me ever getting a child that child has had a case worker recommned
for removal and a judge agree, usally after extensive involvement of
CPS trying to help the family or a crisis situation. The fathers are
so seldom involved with the kids by the time I meet them that talking
about their fathers is a joke, accusing me of helping push them away is
simply laughable. The fathers that are in the picture are usally decent
guys but almost always addicts. Out of 21 placements representing 11
families (I take mostly sibiling groups) a father has been present 4
times, 1 of those 4 was clean and not abusive. Thats one father out of
about 20 men (most sibilings are step-brother/sisters), and his
daughter was in care for one week because his ex-wife had hired a
babysitter and the 3yo had wandered down the road after the babysitter
had fallen asleep, the judge put her in care as an emergency, and it
took a week to have children services verify the situation and the
judge to send her home. Go to your local adoption website and take a
look at the number of kids diagnosised with things like post-tramatic
stress disorder and radical attachment disorder. Better yet go get
certified as a foster parent, because you dont have a clue about us
currently.

The fact that the children you come in contact with represent the segment
of
society that might need supervision does not in any way indicate that all
divorced/never-married couples need such superbvision. It is unfair to
tar
everyone with the brush of you negative experiences.



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.

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

A judge has to sign off on any name change, adult or child. And I see
you belief that a fit parent should be free to make decisions in their
child's life doesnt extend to CPs.

Well, there are 2 parents. Some things require a decision to be made by
both.

"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.

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. 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.

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.

What ought to take its place is each parent having the right to care for
their child WITHOUT government intervention; just as it is with MOST
parents! Gee, what a novel concept. Ya think it could really work?


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.

Uhuh. It is precisely such agencies that ENCOURAGE the failure of families.


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.

Your point?


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.

You forgot common sense education for government people.



Ghostwriter



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

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 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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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

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.

"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

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.

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.







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?

TM did NOT say she pays none of the bills from C$. Read it again.
She also gets bills that vary according to HER lifestyle. That is an
important point you keep overlooking.
C$ is a set and unwavering amount of money, needed or not. Actual costs
are extremely variable.
Oh, and I'm sure that many women who receive C$ (and welfare) do indeed
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?

That is EXACTLY what she's asking... that you failed to answer. Why the
double standard?
I'm sure all readers who have been reading here (alt.c-s) for more than
a
few months are aware of your low opinion of fathers and that you seem to
feel that they never share priorities that you seem to think only
mothers
have in regard to their children.
There really IS nothing to stop married parents from only providing the
bare bones support for their children: the difference is that the
married
parents can INSURE that the support for the children actually gets TO
THE
CHILDREN without filtering it through another adult who may or may not
be
honorable. Statistics indicate that the amount of interaction between
parent and child is a good indicator of how well the parent supports the
children. (IOW, as you forcefully decrease interaction, you risk less
likelihood of C$ payments).
In the end, if the mantra 'its for the children' is accurate, it should
also apply to married parents... 'for the children's sake'.
Phil #3





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
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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.

Because there is no accountabiltiy for how hundreds of thousands of
dollars
of CS gets used and the vast majority of CP mothers who come here
object
to
being asked to account for how the CS money is spent. If it was all
on
the
up and up, and in the best interests of the children, the CP mothers
would
bend over backwards to show they were using the CS money
appropriately.

So do you think it's ok to castigate all CP's, even though they might
be
the
ones who have no problem providing an accounting?

How many is this vast majority of which you speak, anyway? I've seen
very
few asked, and one of the ones asked was me, and I've indicated
repeatedly
that I have no problem providing an accounting.

I could care less how you spend the CS money you get. It is my belief
CP
mothers should voluntarily provide an accounting for CS money to the NCP
father.

There are too many NCP fathers, including me, who have asked for an
accounting of CS money and we were told to f' off because it was none of
our
business.

You asked why posters here think CS money is not being used for their
children. I gave you my answer. I just gave you more detail to explain
my
previous answer.

Yet you didn't answer a simple question - how many is this vast majority
you
cited?

And if CP's are to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to the
NCP's,
are the NCP's expected to voluntarily provide a financial accounting to
the
CP's? That would be pretty equal, wouldn't it?

Sure would! So for every dime that the CP gives to the NCP, they are
entitled to an accounting of how it is spent.