Name change because parent not visiting child

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

family law judges, why don't they oppose the use of the guidelines? My
answer is because they made their jobs a lot easier.

Yes much like the plea bargain formulas that are used on a daily bases in
real criminal courts.
Judges are not interested in the facts or true justice, they just want to
get the case processed the fasted way possible so they can get to gold
course and concentrate on their big fat pension.

Change is not going to come in the courtroom, it has to come from the
people.
How do we tell the law makers that the system is broken and needs fixed
before countless lives are ruined?

"Gini" wrote in message
news:Vi%8h.3826$Kw2.2238@trndny05...


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.

A decade????

Didn't she state somewhere else that she rarely frequents here and has other
things to do?

My God, some people really don't have a life! LOLOLOLOL

"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?

ALL laws. Nice straw man.
I didn't know that never married parents were excluded from this equation.




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
"Gini" wrote
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.

A decade????
==
Yep. I've been around for about that long (1997) and don't remember a time
she wasn't here--Under
other names, of course, she and I both. I've never heard her admit a
mistake. Well, there was that one time
I finally got her to admit she handled her marriage/divorce badly. I don't
think she really meant it though.
==

Didn't she state somewhere else that she rarely frequents here and has
other things to do?
==
I missed that. I now have her killfiled. I did that after the wrongly
convicted prisoner thread a few mothns ago. That was when I
determined she was no longer a worthy opponent. It's been so refreshing
around here since then. Well, maybe not refreshing.
==

My God, some people really don't have a life! LOLOLOLOL
==
Usenet has consumed an extensive amount of her time over the years, but
that's of no concern to me at all.

"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?

I believe that both women and men should have abortion available.
I believe that both men and women should have adoption available.
I believe that both women and men have a responsibility to support their
children.

So, no, I don't think abortion, adoption or child support should be
outlawed.

I believe that abandonment is just plain wrong, on the part of both men AND
women.

Anything I missed?

Phil #3


standing ovation

Ghostwriter

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"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.........

And you had to wait till I got home from work, and then back home after
being out with my children.

Oh well.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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.

Actually, it was 37%.

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.

"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?

I don't recall indicating in any way, shape or form that I had any intention
of providing you, or anyone else in this forum, with *my* issues, to
discuss.

I'm here because, like for so many others, child support is an issue in my
life, and in the lives of my children.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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?

I believe that both women and men should have abortion available.

OK, this I gotta hear. How does a man get an abortion? If you are going to
say that it should be available to both equally, should they ever need it,
then you are just being ridiculous. And that doesn't answer the question of
a woman being able to decide NOT to be a mother, but a man NOT being able to
decide NOT to be a father once a pregnancy occurs. IF a man must take full
responsibility, why should a woman not have to?


I believe that both men and women should have adoption available.

You're still not answering the issue, Moon. A woman has a number of ways to
keep from being a mother once a pregnancy takes place. If a man can
beforced to take 18 years of responsibility for an act he willingly engaged
in that resulted in pregnancy, why should a woman not be held to that same
standard of responsibility?

I believe that both women and men have a responsibility to support their
children.

And how would you improve the system to make sure that this actually
happens?



So, no, I don't think abortion, adoption or child support should be
outlawed.

I believe that abandonment is just plain wrong, on the part of both men
AND women.

Anything I missed?

Quite a bit, as shown above.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"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.

Actually, it was 37%.

Thanks for being so precise. I should have known the media reporting 4 out
of 10 child birth's to unwed mothers really meant 37%. Would you agree the
number exceeded 1.5 million children according to 99% of the birth
certificates issued last year?

The point I am trying to make is - The increasing financial burden on the
Clinton metaphorical "villagers" is being driven up by women having children
out of wedlock. Her position is to overlook the individual responsibility
issues and push the burden off onto society in general to manage. It's just
more of her socialistic, big government mentality cloaked in the "for the
children" mantra.

BTW - Do you take Senator Clinton literally when she says it takes a village
to raise children? Since not many of us live in villages are we excluded?
Why aren't you critical of Clinton for not being precise?