Name change because parent not visiting child

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

teachrmama wrote:
"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.


A level playing field, thats a little vague dont you think. Enforced
equality on a finanicial level would be extremely destructive given
that women with children almost always have lower earning potential.

Shouldn't it be that both parents have equal rights and responsibilities
instead of looking at which one can give the most money to the other to
(hopefully) support the children?

Pre-supposing joint custody is a good idea, with lower child support
to
reflect the quasi-rents that the father will provide. That has been
shown to lower divorce rates considerably.

Little wonder. Removing the incentives lowers the incidence.


The basic needs arguement is your strongest point, the problem that I
can see is that basic needs are a very loosely defined criteria.
Paying
the CP enough so that if they work like mad they can afford a small
apartment, basic food, and the basic clothing needs of a child. Even
if
they are never able to advance or prepare for retirement or all of the
other things that would have been possible inside of a married life.
That isnt anywhere near as bad as allowing the fathers to determine
the
exact level of support they will pay. Even if Mom and child live in a
cheap apartment while Dad's new family lives in a large home, I dont
like the
inequality but inequality exists in reality. Certainly that is nowhere
near the situations that I face with foster kids birthfamilies.

Whoa. You start with what appears to be shared custody the immediately
switch to sole.
Are you having trouble understanding equal responsibility in custody and
support?


And I can see that a equlibrium could exist between allowing a
reasonable ablity for the CP to improve their lifes with allowing the
NCP that same ability. Although given the return on investment society
sees for educated/experienced children I still tend to favor the CP in
that reguard, but nowhere near as strongly as for the basic needs
arguement. This is defineately a situation were joint custody would
be
preferable.

Children raised without their father present in the home are much more
likely to drop out of school. That exposes a problem with your
'solution' of throwing money at the CP.


A judge has almost no information when they are making the decisions,
thats the reason a CASA type system appeals to me. Informaiton and
common sense would solve most of the problems that currently exist.
But
the harsh assumptions have to remain until more information becomes
available, the potential cost is simply too high.

The judges have legislation that mandates income driven C$ guidelines.
The judge's decision is more important in determining custody, which
historically almost always goes to the mother regardless any other
information. Even when both parents request paternal custody, the mother
winds up with custody in about 17% of cases, IIRC.


I think however we may have reached a reasonable solution, at least in
my mind. A franken-system with liberal, populist, and libertarian
aspects

We both agree that law cannot be substituted for human judgment, and
we
both agree that the parents are the best people to exercise that
judgement, but we disagree on the level of conflict of interest that
should be assumed in a NCP.
As I understand your arguments you wish
the fundemental assumption to be that an average NCP will possess
little conflict of interest, so that even when the parents are unable
to agree the court should mandate a bare minimum of child support to
insure a child's basic needs and then allow the parents to work out
any
remaining inequality. Its quite a reasonable solution and certainly
addresses my major concerns of child safety and family failure. Making
the minimum a hard and fast number would force a lot of people to sell
houses and/or declare bankrupcy but that doesnt really upset me half
as
much as true impoverishing. Give the judge the power to freeze
collection of debts until the situation was decided. A hard number
would also give the sytem the ability to truly destroy the real
deadbeat dads.

HUH?
Let me guess what you're trying not to say: As long as the children, and
by association, the mother, are cared for, what happens to dad is of no
importance as long as the $$$$ keeps rolling in.


Its a composite system by the way between populist and libertarian
solutions (there's a combination that doesnt happen often). I could
still very easily see the mild horror stories of mothers fighting to
pay the bills when dad lives in luxury but compared to the flip side
stories that happen today I can certainly live with that.

You can live with it as long as it's not you going through it, sure, but
you're still stuck on the sole mother custody mentality.


I would suggest a further composite to address those situations where
the conflict of interest is larger, add a liberal education
requirement
that both parties attend classes/counciling where that inequality can
be worked out for their specific situation, including how the split
will change as incomes change or emergencies arise, place a strong
emphasis on allowing the parents to exercise judgment, but set up a
minimum framework. Take a portion of the NCP's pay and place it in
eschrow to be divided after the drafting of a binding agreement, thus
giving both parties a strong incentive to come to an agreement.


And you're right back to sole mother custody, which changes nothing.
Phil #3

Place a CASA type as the teacher/counciler and give them the right to
draft
the agreement if the parties cannot agree. And of course allow review
of the agreement at the request of either party. All collections of
payments would be by a private company, a bank most likley, that would
oversee any changes to the payment levels based on perodic review and
recommendation of the CASA, subject to the agreement.


Ghostwriter

"Dale" wrote in message
. ..

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

When you are discussing the difference between what a divorced parent
is "legally required" to provide for their child, as opposed to what
a married parent is "legally required" to provide for their child,
what would you suggest as an appropriate area to look? Traffic laws?

Still here for the entertainment are we?

SO what problems do you personally have today than we can discuss?

Now THAT'S funny!!!!
Phil #3

"Dale" wrote
"Moon Shyne" wrote in
When you are discussing the difference between what a divorced parent is
"legally required" to provide for their child, as opposed to what a
married parent is "legally required" to provide for their child, what
would you suggest as an appropriate area to look? Traffic laws?

Still here for the entertainment are we?

SO what problems do you personally have today than we can discuss?
==
That's good! :-) But, alas--She's been here nearly a decade so I don't see
her
picking up her ball and heading home anytime soon.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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?

When you are discussing the difference between what a divorced parent is
"legally required" to provide for their child, as opposed to what a
married parent is "legally required" to provide for their child, what
would you suggest as an appropriate area to look? Traffic laws?

ANY person who has the care of a child is legally required to provide the
basics of life--food, clothing, shelter--aren't they, Moon? If a
grandparent, aunt, neighbor, friend is caring for a child in the absence of
a parent, THEY must provide those thing, or be found legally responsible for
not doing so. Or are you saying that a divorced parent does not have to
provide for a child at all if they don't want to?




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

"Dale" wrote in message
.. .

"teachrmama" wrote in

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?

As far as I'm concerned, the arrearages can grow until the cows comes
home, $55,000 might as well be $550,000, they can only garnish so much of
my small wage.

And that is one of the major problems with the system. The children may be
declared to be owed a certain lifestyle by the great and mighty judge, but,
if dad is laid off or some other mischance lowers his income, the children
do not get their court-ordered lifestyle, but dad is impoverished with a
mountain of debt that, in the end, may dishearten him to the point that he
just walks away. When will these foolish people wake up and see the havoc
they are wreaking in the very families they think they are helping?


Sooner or later, CP's have to realize that no court, judge or lawyer can
help them if the NCP can't earn a living. The power struggle will end when
NCP's no longer bow to the whim of this pathetic court system.
Wouldn't be too hard to bust the present penal system, it's already
understaffed and over crowded.

Take their power away, stop playing their game!

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


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.

Then, Ghost, you better start making sure that BOTH men and women suffer the
discomforts of the decision. Make sure BOTH are required to provide for the
child, both by being a physical, hands-on paernt, AND by earning the $$$$
mecessary to care for the child. Let your great amd mighty village BITCH
SLAP both the mand AND the woman. And, if only one parent picks up the ball
after the bitch slap, give the child to THAT parent to raise. Forget this
give-the-child-to-mommy-to-raise philosophy, and find out which parent (or
maybe both) is REALLY fit to raise the child. THAT is a far better
philosophy than the unfair one now in place!

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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


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.


ROFLMAO!

Ok, Moonie, just one point. Are you in favor of holding women to this same
standard even though it would mean accepting responsibility for any
unplanned pregnancy thereby outlawing abortion, abandonment and unilateral
adoption AND the ability to keep the children along with the promise of C$
as income?
Phil #3

Excellent point! Moon?? We're waiting.........

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

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

snip for length


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.


A level playing field, thats a little vague dont you think. Enforced
equality on a finanicial level would be extremely destructive given
that women with children almost always have lower earning potential.
Pre-supposing joint custody is a good idea, with lower child support to
reflect the quasi-rents that the father will provide. That has been
shown to lower divorce rates considerably.

Not making the playing field level in terms of money--not at the outset.
Making the playing field level in terms of WHO gets the child if 50/50
custody is not a possibility, who ends up providing child care, insurance,
etc. Things that right now are practically predetermined before the door of
the courtroom is darkened. Mom-custody, Dad-bills. A woman, armed with th
knowledge that she gets both kids and her soon-to-be-ex's $$$--can file for
divorce with confidence. Make it a crap-shoot, with the woman on the losing
end 50% of the time, and see how fast that changes! You want to stabilize
marriage? This is a good way to do so.


The basic needs arguement is your strongest point, the problem that I
can see is that basic needs are a very loosely defined criteria. Paying
the CP enough so that if they work like mad they can afford a small
apartment, basic food, and the basic clothing needs of a child. Even if
they are never able to advance or prepare for retirement or all of the
other things that would have been possible inside of a married life.
That isnt anywhere near as bad as allowing the fathers to determine the
exact level of support they will pay. Even if Mom and child live in a
cheap apartment while Dad's new family lives in a large home, I dont
like the
inequality but inequality exists in reality. Certainly that is nowhere
near the situations that I face with foster kids birthfamilies.

Dad is not there to provide for his ex wife. IF the judge thought that were
necessary so she could get back on her feet, he would have ordered alimony.
But the point of dad providing only for basics with child support is not to
put thechild at a very low level of living, but to give dad the option of
providing the luxuries himself, in his relationship with the child. Fathers
who are actually involved with their children are willing to get them those
things that they long for. The dad who takes his kid to socceer and Little
League is far more likely to be willing to pay for uniforma and team photos
than the dad who is court ordered to do so on mom's demand. Let the dads BE
dads and see what happens.


And I can see that a equlibrium could exist between allowing a
reasonable ablity for the CP to improve their lifes with allowing the
NCP that same ability. Although given the return on investment society
sees for educated/experienced children I still tend to favor the CP in
that reguard, but nowhere near as strongly as for the basic needs
arguement. This is defineately a situation were joint custody would be
preferable.

If BOTH parents are with the children for large chunks of time (as opposed
to the ridiculous "visitation" nonsense in place today) then both parents
will have large amounts of child-free time to, say, work overtime, go to
school, or otherwise improve their situations.


A judge has almost no information when they are making the decisions,
thats the reason a CASA type system appeals to me. Informaiton and
common sense would solve most of the problems that currently exist. But
the harsh assumptions have to remain until more information becomes
available, the potential cost is simply too high.

On the contrary, CS caseworkers have all sorts of info to work with. They
just don't care. The example of our 2 children being considered irrelevant
when setting CS for the 12+ year old daughter my husband never knew existed
is a prime example. Make it so there are no virtual guarantees when walking
through the courthouse doors, and FAR FEWER people will walk through those
doors to begin with. THEN there will be plenty of time for the caaseworkers
to deal with the few cases who DO really need help.


I think however we may have reached a reasonable solution, at least in
my mind. A franken-system with liberal, populist, and libertarian
aspects

We both agree that law cannot be substituted for human judgment, and we
both agree that the parents are the best people to exercise that
judgement, but we disagree on the level of conflict of interest that
should be assumed in a NCP. As I understand your arguments you wish
the fundemental assumption to be that an average NCP will possess
little conflict of interest, so that even when the parents are unable
to agree the court should mandate a bare minimum of child support to
insure a child's basic needs and then allow the parents to work out any
remaining inequality. Its quite a reasonable solution and certainly
addresses my major concerns of child safety and family failure. Making
the minimum a hard and fast number would force a lot of people to sell
houses and/or declare bankrupcy but that doesnt really upset me half as
much as true impoverishing. Give the judge the power to freeze
collection of debts until the situation was decided. A hard number
would also give the sytem the ability to truly destroy the real
deadbeat dads.

And I have no problem with going after true deadbeats. That is what the
system was set up for to begin with.


Its a composite system by the way between populist and libertarian
solutions (there's a combination that doesnt happen often). I could
still very easily see the mild horror stories of mothers fighting to
pay the bills when dad lives in luxury but compared to the flip side
stories that happen today I can certainly live with that.

That would be sad. But we can't heal all ills. If the father is so selfish
and self centered that he would permit his child to live like that, then he
was like that before she ever jumped into bed with him. And, as you said in
another post, MADE, BED, LIE. That doesn't just apply to men.


I would suggest a further composite to address those situations where
the conflict of interest is larger, add a liberal education requirement
that both parties attend classes/counciling where that inequality can
be worked out for their specific situation, including how the split
will change as incomes change or emergencies arise, place a strong
emphasis on allowing the parents to exercise judgment, but set up a
minimum framework.

I think counseling that encourages a focus on the child(ren) and the effect
of decisions on the children is an excellent idea. I have no idea why this
is not in place right now.


Take a portion of the NCP's pay and place it in
eschrow to be divided after the drafting of a binding agreement, thus
giving both parties a strong incentive to come to an agreement.

Why? Why not take a protion of common holdins and place it in such an
account? Or take a bit from both parents? Or from the parent best able to
afford it? It's a little unfair to take arbitrarily from the NCP. And I
don't really see a reasom to take anything at all.

Place
a CASA type as the teacher/counciler and give them the right to draft
the agreement if the parties cannot agree. And of course allow review
of the agreement at the request of either party. All collections of
payments would be by a private company, a bank most likley, that would
oversee any changes to the payment levels based on perodic review and
recommendation of the CASA, subject to the agreement.

If it ever even got to this point. I'm thinking that, with a level playing
field at the outset, and fairness all the way through, we are not going to
see much need for intervention, and will probably see stronger marriages,
becasue the escape clause will not be as palatable, and will b econsidered
only after working hard to keep the marriage going.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
.. .

"teachrmama" wrote in

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?

As far as I'm concerned, the arrearages can grow until the cows comes
home, $55,000 might as well be $550,000, they can only garnish so much
of
my small wage.

And that is one of the major problems with the system. The children may
be
declared to be owed a certain lifestyle by the great and mighty judge,
but,
if dad is laid off or some other mischance lowers his income, the children
do not get their court-ordered lifestyle, but dad is impoverished with a
mountain of debt that, in the end, may dishearten him to the point that he
just walks away. When will these foolish people wake up and see the havoc
they are wreaking in the very families they think they are helping?

Here's another way of looking at this -

The family law judges really don't care about individual cases. Instead,
they apply their personal biases with a broad brush approach and that gives
them a feeling of satisfaction for doing the "public good." The CS
guidelines give them cover to hide behind and keeps them from having to
focus on individual cases and make difficult decisions.

Before the CS guidelines were implemented there used to be judges who
believed in life after divorce for fathers. Men's attorneys used to try to
position their cases to get these judges assigned to their clients cases.
Women's attorneys tried to dream up reasons for trial postponements after
they realized a father-friendly judge had been assigned to their case.

The CS guidelines have significantly changed judicial behavior. Even though
the name clearly states the numbers are "guidelines", the judges treat them
as de facto law and use them for political cover. Just ask yourself this
simple question - If the CS guidelines took judicial discretion away from
family law judges, why don't they oppose the use of the guidelines? My
answer is because they made their jobs a lot easier.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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


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.


ROFLMAO!

standing ovation

The news yesterday was 40% of all child births are now to women who are not
married. That means 40% of all newborns are being brought into the world as
potential CS, welfare, or adoption cases. I just can't bring myself to
define personal responsibility as women having children out of wedlock to
add to the village's financial burden.