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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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 ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... DB wrote: "teachrmama" wrote in The problem is that the courts decisions are so uninformed, and long lasting. A temporary order until the estabilishment of a negotated agreement seems like a much better way. Riiiiight....that will certainly happen--the temporary order is so high that the mother has no reason to negotiate to get it changed. Or the temporary order is so low that the dad drags his feet. As long as the system is adversarial there will be big business in screwing the other guy to get what you want. And there will be vultures out there to help you and get their pound of flesh, too. That does kind of gloss over the fact that negoating an agreement would be very difficult since five different peoples interests are at stake. No, there are never 5 people involved. Only mom and dad. 2 people responsible for their joint child(ren). Nobody else. I think the point was for each child there is one mom and one dad involved in each CS cases. But to take your example to the extreme: 1. Mom 2. Child A 2A. Maternal grandma and grandpa. 2 B. Mom's new live-in boyfriend. You forgot Dad's flavor of the week. Dads are told by judges to get rid of their flavor of the week because they cannot afford to support a second family relationship. While live-in boyfriends are okay'd by the courts for mothers since they supposedly add to the children's financial wellbeing. Don't you see a double standard in how the courts rule on these blended family situations? Well, Bob, your statements are simply that - they don't carry a whole lot of weight unless you can provide cites for your anecdotes. Got any? Nobody can provide cites for anecdotes. But if you hear enough anecdotes you start to see a pattern of events. Here's a few anecdotes that show a pattern: I asked the court for lower CS so I could have money for a social life and to buy appropriate clothing for my level of employment. The court told me I had no business dating and I should wear my suits until they wore out. Teachrmama has had her children described as "irrelevant" by the court. The implication is her husband had no business getting married. CS guideline formulas do not include support for subsequent children. Moon Shyne and other women complain their ex's spends money dating instead of paying CS as ordered. The courts allow vindictive mothers to use draconian methods to collect the CS and stop the dating. Live-in boyfriends are more likely than fathers to commit intimate partner violence. Studies using small samples cause this statistic to vary from twice as likely to 60 times as likely but the courts do nothing to stop it from happening. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |