A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

I need help tracking down a this deadbeat asshole !



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old March 31st 05, 02:37 AM
Kent
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why the FK is this crossposted to alt.support.childfree? We don't have a dog
in this fight, and never will.


"Cloaked" wrote in message
...
SNIP


Take a look at child access interference. Were that prosecuted to the
same extent that child maintenance is prosecuted, heck we'd have kids
growing up without parents, because both Mom and Dad would be in jail.


Hmm... man cheats on woman. Woman runs him down in the parking lot of
the hotel where he was having sex with his mistress. Woman pleads "but
you can't put me in jail, the children will be without a parent."


I am sure that arguement has been made somewhere at sometime!

Interesting that you immediately pull a stereotype in your example - a
very negative stereotype about men!

It never occurred to you that lots of women cheat on their husbands
and then divorce them AND take them to the cleaners???

Want to see if your example is nuts?? Reverse the genders and you will
immediately see how crazy the argument is!

So... let me ask you... are you responding the way that you are
because you're a man in that situation or because you think it's fair
for everyone to be put in jail for not supporting children? Do you
really think that this is "either/or" or is there another option
wherein people actually support their own children and don't run out
on payments *OR* children?


So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

I'll tell you what I think, I think that when the custodial parent -
usually the woman - interferes with court ordered access of the
non-custodial partent - usually the man - that the offender should
spend an automatic 7 nights in the crow-bar hotel. No exceptions. No
excuses. No trial. No appeal. Automatic done deal. 2nd offense?? 14
nights. 3rd offense??? 30 days. 4th Offense??? loss of custody.

Before you cry fowl and say it is so unfair, consider the "punsihment"
that a man may receive for "non-payment":

Cancellation of Passport
Loss of Drivers License
Imprisonment
Criminal Contempt Charges
Fines
Garnishment of wages
Revokation of Business License
Revokation of Professional Status
Loss of right to vote

The list goes on...

Sorry, from where I sit women do not undergo these indignities. And
when a woman choses to interfere with access, it is done so with
virtual impunity.

Why the onesided party???? Why should not women enjoy the same
persecution and prosecution as men??

Don't like it? How about telling your local politician to lighten up
of the "dead beat dad" crap - because that is all it is - crap. It is
spewed from the mouths of politicians because it sounds good to women
and the sole purpose is to garner part of the vote - it has nothing to
do with facts, reason, or justice.

The best option is to balance not just the laws, but the
implementation of those laws. Justice must not only be done, it must
be SEEN to be done! To balance, either women must suffer as men do, or
men's lot must be lightened to the same level that women are privy to.

Which would you prefer??



  #182  
Old March 31st 05, 03:50 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:

I don't understand how you don't understand but maybe the person to
whom I'm responding will get it. He seemed intelligent. Let me take a
stab at explaining this to you. The above case is the danger in
generalizing one incident to all people. Not all women are murderers.
Not all men cheat. That was my point. I guess you blinked.


Well, actually Kate, I didn't get it either, which is why I didn't
respond to your post. Your post to me was all over the place ...
somewhat confusing actually, so I guess I am not intelligent.

One thing I will respond to in your previous post is your point about
why *all* men seem to only speak about personal experiences. The reason
why I added the word personal to the experiences is to keep it tame.
from my conversations with married and divorced friends, from my reading
and basic research, the same point comes up again and again and again.
But I can only speak from what I *personally* know.

BTW, the above case was fact. It did happen. The case above was fact.
She killed *and* then plead for mercy because her children were made
orphans. Ironic, huh?


Point?

It never occurred to you that lots of women cheat on their husbands
and then divorce them AND take them to the cleaners???


Don't make me roll my eyes at you.


Here's where the whole thing cheapens, IMO. Bringing eye rolling is a,
what, passive aggressive putdown. It also conjurs up the image of the
poor female, at least to me.

Men have also been known to throw away the stay-at-home wife for a
more interesting, younger, career woman. See? There *are* two sides.
I'm looking at them. You aren't. What is going on is that you're so
use to fighting women that you can't see your way around the issue.
I'm a woman; therefore, I'm taking a side; therefore, I'm wrong. Am I
getting your point? If so, I think I will roll my eyes at you.


I didn't see Cloaked say that you were wrong. I saw him say that your
position was wrong. There is a difference. He might have been
gregarious in his choice of words, but he was, I think, focusing on the
position. In fact, his comment about how you or people should go to
their politicians and tell them to stop mouthing the "Beat Dad Dead"
homily I think underscored that point.

Btw, rolling your eyes cheapens that argument, in my opinion.

Rambler
  #183  
Old March 31st 05, 04:48 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:


I believe that the media has a hard time
beating women up in the same way that they feel free to beat men up
but I don't think that adding women on to the deadbeat parent list is
the appropriate response. I think that the appropriate response is
that parents should support their children and then these lists would
be unnecessary. But.. this isn't a perfect world, is it? I also know
that in alt.support.single-parents, the term "deadbeat dad" is
discouraged. It is in the monthly FAQ IIRC.


If you read that I was saying that everybody should be thrown in jail,
or that everybody should be a "deadbeat" then you read incorrectly.
Neither do I think it is possible to hop skip and jump from here to the
"appropriate response [being] that parents should support their children
and then these lists would be unecessary." These lists exist for people
who *do* support their children, so saying support your children and
we'll get rid of the list defies logic. Or reason. My initial point, a
point you indicate that you have read the studies on and agreed with, is
that the vast majority of people on these lists do not deserve to be on
them.

Because being male is the be all end all as far as being top of the
food chain.


That depends entirely on which "food chain" you are talking about. To
use a metaphor, a great white shark is not at the top of the food chain
in the middle of the Gobi desert. He's more of a sitting duck.
Environment plays a very significant factor.



Only if one lives in an environment that is totally unaffected by
every other environment... a glass fishbowl, perhaps. Otherwise, we
see and learn that the advantage tends to go to the men.


Then I guess that the family court system and the divorce system is a
glass fishbowl.


In family court, men are most certainly not at "the top of the food
chain". To suggest otherwise is... well... nonsensical because it
flies in the face of so much data indicating the opposite.



Men were the ones who put other men in this position (male judges). To
blame women for taking advantage of it is like blaming men for taking
advantage of being at the top of the food chain. It exists. There are
reasons why it exists as it does. They are not fair reasons.. not for
either "side."


Really? You mean women didn't get the vote in the 20's after all, or
that all judges are over 105 years old?

So now it is the male judges who are the problem, not the court system,
not the social welfare officers, not the "tender years doctrine" which,
if I recall correctly, was supposed to have gone out in the 80's with a
series of conventions, and then re-writes of the guardianship and
custody laws in the 90's, but yet are still applied.

If you could show me an outlash from the female gender *against* this
thing, then I'd agree with you. But I don't see that, even though (at
least in here) many women do agree with equal access/custody types of
things.

If that is so, then they are more likely to not pay the child support
ordered. Those two pieces of the puzzle fit well. That's exactly why
women who do want to be fair and share custody are condemned as nuts,
drunks, drug abusers, and etc.


Fine. Then make the same argument the other way around. Those men who
aren't paying who are drug users, drunks and whatnot shouldn't be placed
on the "rolls" because of that? Doesn't fit.

What backs up the statement that these women are *insert whatever
issue* is that men have had to fight awfully hard to gain custody of
their children. They have been forced to prove their ex's to be
*insert whatever issue* or lose their children. They have had to do
so using money to hire a private investigator or by getting medical
records. Also, women are more likely to seek help for "emotional
problems." Therefore, more women would be judged to be *insert
whatever issue* in a court of law than men. Men have to prove they
are better. Women have automatically won.


Don't follow this one at all.

Many of us had money issues at the time. Money issues are one of the
top three reasons why couples divorce. I was a recently married young
adult at the time and expecting my oldest child.


Hmm ... I was always told that the money, sex, kids argument line was
false. Those were symptoms, not prolems.

You work to explain the rise in divorce but the explanation has little
to do with the aforementioned "tender years" doctrine.



No.. that has to do with custody. The topic was child support and
"deadbeat dads". One cannot be a deadbeat dad without a court order to
pay. The number one reason for a custody dispute is divorce.


False. One is very easily labeled a "Beat Dead Dad." Courts do not
bestow that label. I would love to see the court order that says "And
so my Order is that Mr. So and So be a Dead Beat Dad." I have no Order
against me for anything, yet I am referred to repeatedly as a Dead Beat
Dad by the mother, by the ex-mother-in-law and my kids even bring it up
from time to time (or they used to).

I'll leave the throw away line at the end of your paragraph alone,
except to say, "relevance?"

I know. But given a choice, I would rather work on keeping couples
together than on the issue of how to divide assets and share custody.


laudable, but I don't think it can be done it "the Dark Side" becomes
fully understood. Carrot stick rationale.

Rambler
  #184  
Old March 31st 05, 05:12 AM
T
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cloaked" wrote in

Before you cry fowl and say it is so unfair, consider the "punsihment"
that a man may receive for "non-payment":

Cancellation of Passport
Loss of Drivers License
Imprisonment
Criminal Contempt Charges
Fines
Garnishment of wages
Revokation of Business License
Revokation of Professional Status
Loss of right to vote

The list goes on...


Yes isn't it interesting that a poor man gets the full weight of the law
thrown at him for something he has no control and yet the basic criminal
receives very little in the way of enforcement. Hold up a gas station and
you get a few months in jail, but you don't get 18 years of harrasement from
CSE and other agencies!

This is just a good old fashioned witch hunt!!!!!!!





  #185  
Old March 31st 05, 05:18 AM
V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Cloaked" wrote in message
...
SNIP



So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

snip


Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is nothing to
see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth and
knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you...
Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers?
V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer


  #186  
Old March 31st 05, 05:22 AM
V
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rambler" wrote in message
...
snip Btw, rolling your eyes cheapens that argument, in my opinion.

Rambler


Do you not roll your eyes?
In person?
I do. Sometimes I kick out the 'whatever!'
It is a coping mechanism used in those moments when the other person just
simply won't or can't 'get it'!
No harm meant, I am sure.
V


  #187  
Old March 31st 05, 05:32 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

V wrote:
"Cloaked" wrote in message
...

SNIP

So you are accusing him of being a cheater? Rather presumptuous,
wouldn't you say? Sounds like something a femminist lawyer would come
out with.

snip



Hey, hey.....watch it....everyone move out of here.......there is nothing to
see here....psst....hey you...yeah..you mister...with the loin cloth and
knuckles dragging as you gait slowly....yeah...you...
Ahem...you gotta problem with feminist lawyers?
V, who is a feminist and working on being a lawyer


And there I thought you were practicing a stand-up routine.

Rambler
  #188  
Old March 31st 05, 05:35 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:

And for a second, I thought you were, perhaps, willing to look at
other sides of the issue. My bad. I see that this is just another
"I'm right and you're a woman" posts.


I see. Good response. It would appear that you are unwilling to look
at other sides of this issue. Or any sides of this issue. My bad.

Has nothing to do with you being a woman or not. That is irrelevant,
except it seems to you. I can see where the soc.boys guys would have
fun with this, but that's not my purview.

Thanks for playing.

Rambler
  #189  
Old March 31st 05, 07:18 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 12:35:32 +0800, Rambler
the following was posted in blue
crayon:

Thanks for playing.

Rambler



LOL... sure. wink


Go ahead, you can have the last word. I know that is important to you.
Especially seeing as most of the other things you said were
unintelligible.

It's because I'm a man, isn't it, one of those horrible wretches who put
you in your current positon. I can take it .., I'm used to getting
picked on.

Rambler
(oh, just noticed your attribution line about "blue crayons." A great
way to subtly tell the person you're responding to that their comments
are childish. Works a lot better if you can get the grammar right, so
you might wish to change it from "the following was posted in blue
crayon" to "posted the following in blue crayon." besides, 'was posted'
is passive voice, which while it fits your style, is typically frowned
upon. But then, I shouldn't be commenting on grammar and spelling).
  #190  
Old March 31st 05, 07:44 AM
Rambler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

'Kate wrote:
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 14:18:34 +0800, Rambler
the following was posted in blue
crayon:


Go ahead, you can have the last word. I know that is important to you.



What an angry man.


Come on, you've got to have a better last word than that, don't you? I
mean this one is so ... so ... transparent.

Not being able to answer a single thing, you delved quickly into name
calling. I mean, I figured as the self made representative of a
superior class, you could at least come up with something witty,
something stinging, something provocative or even downright intelligent,
as opposed to a trite fallback. Perhaps a huddle with V the feminist
lawyer want-to-be is in order. You can take the family therapist
student role, and she can take the law student role. (Oh, btw, if you
truly are studying to be a family therapist, I would think again ... way
to many issues and labels for you to be of help to somebody ... I mean,
wouldn't it be the angry men that you were trying to save to save
marriage ... or would those be a convenient excuse in your practive ...).

Come on, one more for the Gipper ....

Rambler
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
State warns county about deadbeat parent ads/10-2 Dave Briggman Child Support 0 October 2nd 04 01:19 AM
In Defense of 'Deadbeat Dads Don Child Support 8 August 12th 04 07:17 AM
Deadbeat Fathers are a growing problem throughout the region Fighting for kids Child Support 5 November 12th 03 03:33 AM
Deadbeat Parent Finder Service infopro Child Support 21 October 6th 03 04:38 PM
Boksa, birth insults and schizophrenia (also: Gastaldo 'you ignorant asshole' --Allen D. Radant, MD) Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 1 July 14th 03 11:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.