Name change because parent not visiting child

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of
both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

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

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


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

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

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

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

Ghostwriter

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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?


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?


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.





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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote
in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I
can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any
alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else
I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes
of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but
I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and
no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you
have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I
will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be
coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support
investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the
spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms
of
both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man
does
without.

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

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


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

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

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

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

Ghostwriter


And therein lies the difference:
American Heritage Dictionary
Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/

-noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or
conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.
-adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.


Populist:
American Heritage Dictionary op·u·list (ppy-lst)
n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.


WordNet :
socialism (ssh-lzm)

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an
economic system based on state ownership of capital

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the
vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the
transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect
implementation of collectivist principles.


Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution as
written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the rights
that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther
afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS
rules.
Phil #3

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

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote
in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I
can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the
system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any
alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else
I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes
of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but
I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and
no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you
have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I
will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be
coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support
investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the
spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms
of
both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man
does
without.

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

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


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

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

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

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

Ghostwriter


And therein lies the difference:
American Heritage Dictionary
Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/

-noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or
conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.
-adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.


Populist:
American Heritage Dictionary op·u·list (ppy-lst)
n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.


WordNet :
socialism (ssh-lzm)

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an
economic system based on state ownership of capital

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the
vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the
transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect
implementation of collectivist principles.


Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution as
written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the rights
that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther
afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS
rules.
Phil #3

Take a long hard look at the 9th amendment. Basically it states that
unenumerated rights can have standing against enumerated rights.
Thankfully the SCOTUS has always held that unenumerated rights have to
be read from the enumerated ones. Thus the right to the pursuit of
happyness and due process require a "right to privacy". But the
constitution is clear that unenumberated rights exist and that it is
the SCOTUS job to establish how they relate to the enumerated ones.

So you are right, populism and socialism cant and shouldnt exist in
pure form in the US. But a composite can certainly exist provided that
it is based on reasonable unenumerated rights. Basically the founding
fathers knew they couldnt predict the future and left it up the the
courts to figure it out.

Ghostwriter

666 thinsp.png
MB5!.1PT*&@H````-24A$4@````(````$" 8```"D[^XY````!F)+1T0`_P#_
M`/^@O:3````"7!(67,```L3```+$P$`FIP8````!W1)344'U@(# $08U?L#
*Y"
"8((`
`
end

begin 666 obreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(4A ^!HP(
0C3M*)OA6I=ONGT6B2* `.P``
`
end

begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$;
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end

begin 666 schwa.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````&``\```(0A(^I^$6
,&H@2N7MK9AP0% `[
`
end

begin 666 ibreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(1A ^!HP(
``
`
end

begin 666 omacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!@`.`/``/___P```$T`=9_WOPR"9H%U'U `G$CWO["3`0!,`$T`
M``!-``\```!'U `..IO`%!``"4\V\`J(C[OZB!][______A.IO`"A)][\`
M````=1]0`)Q(][\!````7!]0`+OQ0P#8,5 `/-O`&8```!'U ```0``.P4
M4 `!````V#%0`$P`````! ````! `-@Q4 ````````````$```#P%5 `! $`
M````````````[!10`/CJ;P!L``@`#P`5``````!'U `8'- `-0"2 !/&5N
M``2(W:%____````+B !6P``_P`!`/___P`DT4Z7&%H9#-H=&U1TE&`&]M
`'!O``((``",ZV\`( `'!O``,`
M`@@```((`@!O`'9[+%,"""8"-MU-3Z%``!$`0(`IP6&YBD! `A`@`````V
MW9)[90? "C;=```"" ``I'MO'@((`@A$`:%U@4`````MGO/'$$``#./[7
MYQ8``.6.(UH1[7UHL^-\\7`0#%" ``@"8!&\```#[5[77P$$C %$*.@"
M`)S?`@#G%K3G`@"8!&\`6'P@`(\!^'L,*O_`@@```````!` 10`/(PM)%\7
M````````% 0@`)S?`@#G%H2,13I86AD,VAT;5Q'249;VUA8W(N9VEF``#,
M9R)7P$O$@``7P$````````4!" `7GP7#[7```P`#8`M."`!P/K'PH`(\!
M7BF8!9T%N'P@`(\!#"KWOS `,SO;P"(
M)O_U!WVOP!P;P`?0?_10```%@?4 #MB?_`@4```````! ````# !-````
M30!8'U `0 `````````"!0```@4``/SL;P"!B__``!-`)B+][\``$T`00``
M`$$```!F``````````$````@[6\`R9KWOP``30`&F__#()F@68```!F````
M``0``&8````%AD,```0``"'Y! $`````+ `````&``X`0 @A``$('!A@((""
:!Q$:%!B@H4.%!QE"7$@184&(%QE2W!@0`#L`
`
end

begin 666 lprime.gif
M1TE&.#EA`P`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````#`!8```(+A(\)8;P-
'E9PT$10`.P``
`
end

"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

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.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote
in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter"
wrote
in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that?
I
can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that
the
system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any
alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything
else
I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary
causes
of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion
but
I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their
FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks,
and
no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you
have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I
will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be
coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support
investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the
spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in
terms
of
both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown
man
does
without.

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

Spoken like a true stalinist.


Ghostwriter


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

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

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

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

Ghostwriter


And therein lies the difference:
American Heritage Dictionary
Libertarian: lib?er?tar?i?an /?l?b?r't??ri?n/

-noun 1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought
or
conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will.
-adjective 3. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of
liberty.
4. maintaining the doctrine of free will.


Populist:
American Heritage Dictionary op·u·list (ppy-lst)
n. A supporter of the rights and power of the people.


WordNet :
socialism (ssh-lzm)

n 1: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry 2: an
economic system based on state ownership of capital

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the
vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and
distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the
transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect
implementation of collectivist principles.


Neither populism nor socialism can fully exist under the Constitution
as
written. It is supposed to restrict federal control and guard the
rights
that while unpopular, are protected. We seem to be getting farther
afield from the meaning of that document nearly every time the SCOTUS
rules.
Phil #3

Take a long hard look at the 9th amendment. Basically it states that
unenumerated rights can have standing against enumerated rights.
Thankfully the SCOTUS has always held that unenumerated rights have to
be read from the enumerated ones. Thus the right to the pursuit of
happyness and due process require a "right to privacy". But the
constitution is clear that unenumberated rights exist and that it is
the SCOTUS job to establish how they relate to the enumerated ones.

So you are right, populism and socialism cant and shouldnt exist in
pure form in the US. But a composite can certainly exist provided that
it is based on reasonable unenumerated rights. Basically the founding
fathers knew they couldnt predict the future and left it up the the
courts to figure it out.

Ghostwriter

The problem is that the SCOTUS changes it's collective mind depending on
politics.
Such as the case with Brown Vs the Board of Education (1954) overturning
their century-old Plessy Vs Ferguson decision (1896).
While I agree with the basis for the idea of Brown vs Board of
Education, what is puzzling is that they made diametrically different
decisions on the same subject according to the same Constitution. With
that in mind, who's to say any decision they make is 'right' or perhaps
just 'right now' for it may well be overturned by the same court on a
later date.
Phil #3

"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.

Ghostwriter


You must not read the replies to your posts for that is exactly what
Teachermama and others have been saying.
And it's not "father's" rights but "equal" rights.
Phil #3

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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

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

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

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
egroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in



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

THAT

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

IS

THE SIMPLE TRUTH.

Ghostwriter

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

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

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


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

mom

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

think

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

ones?

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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



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



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

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


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

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

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


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

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






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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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