Name change because parent not visiting child

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"P.Fritz" wrote in

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

I guess it's OK with him and others of his Ilk that I should be
deported because I can't come up with $55,000. I have to lose my job,
my home and friends & family because this greedy bitch can't see past
the $$$ that the Friends of the court have promised her. She was
receiving $800/mth until immigration revoked my authorization to work
in this country. Nobody said these people were smart!


Actually, as a father, you are considered expendable in this feministic
(read: socialist) society. To quote Carey Roberts:
When one million children experience divorce each year, and when custody
is awarded to mothers in 85% of cases, you can see the scope of the
problem. If you want to scale down male influence in a society, what
better way than to bar fathers from seeing their own sons and daughters?

And it's working too!
I have witnessed several fatherless children proclaim that they don't give a
rip about their father and/or that his absence has no negative effect on
their lives; some saying that it is a benefit. Most never had a father.

... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once
admitted, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from
the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions,
national patriotism, and religious dogmas." Men are often the staunchest
defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to
marginalize males by any means possible. --
Phil #3

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Phil" wrote in

... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once
admitted, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from
the
minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions,
national
patriotism, and religious dogmas." Men are often the staunchest
defenders
of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males
by
any means possible. --
Phil #3

Yes, I feel very marginalized & processed too!

I wonder if they still expect me to keep paying if I'm told by the federal
governement that I'm not allowed to get a job?

Welcome to the land of governmental quandaries. Reminds me of the law that
prohibits a landlord from rejecting a rental application because the
qualified applicant is registered as a child molester. Yet, the same law
holds the landlord civilly liable for any sex crime such tenant perpetrates
against a neighbor!
I can tell you all about being in this scarry and sick predicament.

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Phil" wrote in

... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once
admitted, "To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from
the
minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions,
national
patriotism, and religious dogmas." Men are often the staunchest
defenders
of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males
by
any means possible. --
Phil #3

Yes, I feel very marginalized & processed too!

I wonder if they still expect me to keep paying if I'm told by the federal
governement that I'm not allowed to get a job?

Welcome to the land of governmental quandaries. Reminds me of the law that
prohibits a landlord from rejecting a rental application because the
otherwise
qualified applicant is registered as a child molester. Yet, the same law
holds the landlord civilly liable for any sex crime such tenant perpetrates
against a neighbor!
I can tell you all about being in this scarry and sick predicament.

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


A civil action, like say a contested divorce, is basically an
individual asking for a court to decide whos rights have higher
priority in any given situation. The idea of a CASA pre-supposes the
fact that a civil action has already been filed. At that point someone
has already asked a judge to step in and make a decision, inside of the
adverseral, only the lawyers make out civil system that exists in this
country. Everyone is screaming that you want non-adverseral, informed
decisionmaking, and everyone including me agrees that the parents are
the first people that SHOULD be making those decisions. The court
system will almost always agree to any divorce/child support settlement
that the parents mutually agree on. The problem is that at least one
parent is asking for government intervention because the parents HAVE
NOT been able to reach a decision point. A lot of arguement as to why
that is revolve around the fact that the CP wants to milk and
unreasonable amount of money out of the NCP. The CASA is a method that
allows for informed decisionmaking without conflict of interest,
something that is absent in any contested custody or divorce situation
currently. The CASA simple replaces the judge in the majority of cases
very similar to the medical communities heavy use of nurses to assist
doctors. Selection of the CASA by elimination would allow for both
sides to be reasonably represented without the conflict of interest
that arises when a lawyer is payed to represent your interests while
the court is seeking the best interests of the child.

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

A constested situation exists with massive potential conflict of
interests, where at least one participant has REQUESTED government
intervention, the potential damage to society is large, exactly when
would you say intervention is necessary? You want the CP to be
constantly anwserable to the NCP on expendatures but I imagine that
your not so interested in giving the CP access to the NCP's
income/spending information. Conflicts of interests like that are the
reasons that the system is so damn cumbersome.

Ghostwriter

Dale wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in

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

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

I dont think the situation is quite that cut and dried. The uninformed
judge in the only person that can order the garnishment currently, I
would rather have an informed CASA making that decision. At the same I
want a CASA that can call your employer and ask them is you were laid
off, fired, or quit. If you quit to lower your income to avoid the
court ordered support, then you are guility of contempt and I want the
CASA to jail your deadbeat ass. If you honestly were layed off I want
that same CASA to be able to transfer some of the current payment
amount into arrears so that you can get back on your feet, at which
point the payment can be readjusted. And I want all this without you or
your ex having to dish out money for a lawyer.

Ghostwriter

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


Reductio ad Hitlerum, took you long enough but you didnt disappoint.

So you dont like community responsibility, lets talk personal
responsibility.

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie

And by the way, it does take a village, but one of the points that Mrs.
Clinton is unlikley to ever understand is that part of the villiagers
responsibilty is to bitch slap those members that try and avoid
personal responsibility.

Ghostwriter

"ghostwriter" wrote in

Dont screw people you dont intend to spend the rest of your life with,
if you do: YOU DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK. Once you have children staying
together to provide for them is more important than spending time with
your buddies, or buying a ton of crap then arguing about money. Dont
have children with someone that doesnt agree with that. Failure to
follow this advice is entirly YOUR OWN DAMN FAULT.

Dont come whining because you couldnt come to an agreement with your
ex about the child support, thus forcing a judge to make a decision
based on a tiny amount of information. And dont be suprised when those
of us that were sexually responsible and made our first marriage work
have more sympathy for your kids than you.

Bed, Made, Lie

Excellent advice for all women!

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

Dale wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in

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

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

I dont think the situation is quite that cut and dried. The uninformed
judge in the only person that can order the garnishment currently, I
would rather have an informed CASA making that decision. At the same I
want a CASA that can call your employer and ask them is you were laid
off, fired, or quit. If you quit to lower your income to avoid the
court ordered support, then you are guility of contempt and I want the
CASA to jail your deadbeat ass. If you honestly were layed off I want
that same CASA to be able to transfer some of the current payment
amount into arrears so that you can get back on your feet, at which
point the payment can be readjusted. And I want all this without you or
your ex having to dish out money for a lawyer.


So you want the arrears to continue to grow and grow and grow while the
person is laid off? Sounds great--leave 'em with a debt they can't get out
from under when they finally get work again. And if they get a lower paying
jop, do the arrearas continue to grow because, no matter what, the children
are owed a certain lifestyle?

And if mom is laid off, does she also accrue arrearages? Does she "owe" the
children for not providing the lifestyle she once could? Will she have to
"pay them back" when she finds another job?

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


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


A civil action, like say a contested divorce, is basically an
individual asking for a court to decide whos rights have higher
priority in any given situation. The idea of a CASA pre-supposes the
fact that a civil action has already been filed. At that point someone
has already asked a judge to step in and make a decision, inside of the
adverseral, only the lawyers make out civil system that exists in this
country. Everyone is screaming that you want non-adverseral, informed
decisionmaking, and everyone including me agrees that the parents are
the first people that SHOULD be making those decisions. The court
system will almost always agree to any divorce/child support settlement
that the parents mutually agree on. The problem is that at least one
parent is asking for government intervention because the parents HAVE
NOT been able to reach a decision point.

The problem is that the current system is set up in such a way that WOMEN
WIN the majority of the time. They are almost guaranteed custody of the
children. So if they don't get exactly what they want from the men, they
can run to court and get it from the judge. Make the system equal for both
genders--no favoritism--and see how quickly the "fix it for me, judge"
attitude falls off. You'd see a lot more people working things out
themselves.


A lot of arguement as to why
that is revolve around the fact that the CP wants to milk and
unreasonable amount of money out of the NCP. The CASA is a method that
allows for informed decisionmaking without conflict of interest,
something that is absent in any contested custody or divorce situation
currently.

Making the playing field equal would do exactly the same thing, without the
need for a CASA.

The CASA simple replaces the judge in the majority of cases
very similar to the medical communities heavy use of nurses to assist
doctors. Selection of the CASA by elimination would allow for both
sides to be reasonably represented without the conflict of interest
that arises when a lawyer is payed to represent your interests while
the court is seeking the best interests of the child.

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

A constested situation exists with massive potential conflict of
interests, where at least one participant has REQUESTED government
intervention, the potential damage to society is large, exactly when
would you say intervention is necessary?

When the playing field is level, and they STILL can't agree.


You want the CP to be
constantly anwserable to the NCP on expendatures but I imagine that
your not so interested in giving the CP access to the NCP's
income/spending information. Conflicts of interests like that are the
reasons that the system is so damn cumbersome.

The CP already has that access. NCPs file income reports with the court
regularly. Plus the courts have total acxcess to employment and tax info.
Why don't you already know that? Besides which, I think that each parent
should be responsible for 50% of the child's basic needs. And anything they
want to do above and beyond that is a choice that each gets to make for
him/herself.

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

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


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

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own
costs is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I
know is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to
educational expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental
insurance to medical and dental expenses has risen steadily
between their infancy and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY
YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've
treated your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a
*choice* to provide more than that. You are only *legally required*
to provide the minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change
the legal requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly
none that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor
spelled out in my divorce.

Perhaps you think that laws only come from divorce decrees?

That was my question too.



On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who
was calculating how much support to provide to their children based on
some "legal minimum requirement"


That's what I'm trying to get you to see. The law states that CPs must
provide the basic legal minimum requirement. That's it!
Phil #3