Name change because parent not visiting child

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot to read this paragraph:

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



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



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

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


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

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

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

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

Indeed. Her straw man bring to light the double standards of the "child
support" system. I can't WAIT for her answer to your question.




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!!!!!!

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ps.com...

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

teachrmama 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'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.

You have a level of information and understanding about each child in
your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child
support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that
environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly.
A
overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of
information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are
not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book
laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you
decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each
party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge,
and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of
both situations are completely different.

Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child
support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental
support.

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.

That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint
custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt
change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions
and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a
huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for
investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers",
but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So
increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to
investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those
kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger
mess than the current system.

Ghostwriter


After reading this several times, the only way I can summarize it is
that you prefer punishing men with or without cause.
Phil #3

I perfer punishing men over punishing children. I would rather punish
with cause, but am willing to accept that the increases in social
services necessary to figure out who has given cause are unlikley to be
inacted anytime soon. As long as one side wraps themselves in the
plight of the the single mothers like a flag, and the other side
accuses them of every vile thing imaginable while claiming to be
principled, nothing is going to be accomplished.

If the fathers rights people woke up and started screaming for the
heads of the true deadbeats and abusive fathers, while advocating more
reasonable standards for those fathers that had met a measureable
standard, them maybe something might happen. But like I said not likley
to happen in the near future.

Such fathers are neither their concern nor their responsibility.


Ghostwriter

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

teachrmama 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'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.

You have a level of information and understanding about each child in
your class that would be impossibily difficult to maintain in a child
support environment. You can make immediate decisions in that
environment and if they are incorrect correct them almost as quickly. A
overloaded family court system can not begin to touch that level of
information and insight. Your decisions are subject to review but are
not hemmed in by centuries of english common law, case law, and book
laws. The parents of your kids for the most part will support you
decisions, the legal system in our country basically requires each
party to have a lawyer in charge of thinking up every loophole, dodge,
and boarderline illegal tactic possible. The underlieing assumption of
both situations are completely different.

I don't think so. The system would not be overloaded if the parents who
have no intention of shirking were not forced into the system. Then ONLY
the shirkers would be left to deal with. No more overload.



Joint custody is certainly the best option, since it allows child
support to be lessened and replaced with reasonable levels of parental
support.

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.

That support should always be expected but parental support in a joint
custody situation is the best option when possible. But that doesnt
change the fact that given the lack of information harsh assumptions
and expectations are the only way to prevent the shirkers from doing a
huge amount of damage. Sure you can say "free up money for
investigation by stopping the harsh enforcement on the good fathers",
but you need the money to find out who the good fathers are. So
increases in fathers rights have to be coupled with money to
investigate, enforce, and increase social services to protect those
kids that are on the borderline or we are begging for a much larger
mess than the current system.

You don't need a plugged nickel to find out who are the "good fathers."
It
is obvious. They are involved in the lives of their children, and provide
for them. How hard is that? You seem to feel that fathers need to be
forced to be caring. Why do you feel that way?

Can you say "delusion"?

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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


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

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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


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

And well more than 18 years of bills.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot to read this paragraph:

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



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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making process.
Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making process as
divorced parents do.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get over it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[/soapbox]

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message

legroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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



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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"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.

So if the accounting is only for any CS money passed from one to the other,
how I spend my own income from my own employment (or any other money I
should acquire) is none of my ex's business?

teachrmama wrote:

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

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
egroups.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.



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



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?

That is his "women = victim" mentality.




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!

Rights are inalienalbe.......something GW cannot comprehend.


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!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

snip for length


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot to read this paragraph:

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



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



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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Perhaps for the same reason that your system singles out unmarried fathers
concerning "child support". Lay off these guys and reciprocally the mothers
will be left alone. Simple. But then again, why do so. Mothers are already
exempt from such accountability.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

(see above)





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Since it costs money to raise children,

No it doesn't.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


Get over it.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Then why do you do so?


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

[/soapbox]