A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Name change because parent not visiting child



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old December 11th 06, 04:01 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


DB wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in

My postion and thinking on the subject are fairly common in this
country,


What about the global thinking on equal human rights for everyone, should a
man's existence be diminished because a political pressure group has come up
with a sympathetic slogan that allows politicians to do as they please?

When are we going to tell our political representatives that "in the best
interest of the children" is not an excuse for ignoring human rights or
denying freedoms that were hard fought for.

No Mr. Senator, you do not get of that easy to ignore equality & human
rights in the name of political agenda. Your job is to make sure the system
is helping everyone involved, the present system does not do this, FIX
IT!!!!!!!!!!!


I've said this several times and I'll give it one more try, your rights
exist in competition with the rights of all the people that you
interact with. The law and the courts tell us who's rights are given
precedience in any given situation, and they will continue to do so for
as long as the United States remains. The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support. It was done with due process, as a result of a
consentual act. So dont give me a crap line of your rights have been
trambled, without accepting the fact you are advocating trampling your
kid's rights.

Statistically households run by single mothers are the most poor, the
most at risk. Society has a very large interest in seeing those kids
get every possible chance. Yes the system is too harsh, and yes a
third option is desperatly needed, but we cant afford the cost of
tossing the system without something to fall back on. And a pure
libertarian solution is a pipe dream.

Ghostwriter

  #242  
Old December 11th 06, 05:52 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote
................
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.

==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.



  #243  
Old December 11th 06, 07:32 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.

==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.


Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.

Ghostwriter

  #244  
Old December 11th 06, 08:10 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.

==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.


Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.

==
And?


  #245  
Old December 11th 06, 08:35 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in

Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.



Where's the bit that all men are equal?


  #246  
Old December 11th 06, 08:55 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.

==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the

*mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.


Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.


You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the facts.

There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights of
both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents have
done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled by
no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only one
parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the family.
This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on the
child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the parents.

No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the
financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of the
child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define
and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have
done nothing to forfeit their rights.


  #247  
Old December 11th 06, 09:11 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

The phrase "best interest of the child" is a deceptive way of saying the
government has the power to define and establish the future of children
over the objections of parents who have
done nothing to forfeit their rights.


That phrase is just an excuse for the government to ignore everyone's basic
rights.
I don't ever recall that anyone was ever guaranteed a right to any quality
of lifestyle, so where does the government get the authorization to act
beyond a child's basic needs?

Should my child be guaranteed a new car to ride to school in?


  #248  
Old December 11th 06, 09:54 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.
==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.


Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.

==
And?


And amazingly enough you dont get the right to demand an accounting for
every dime of that money, its not relevent to the law. The CP actually
gets to act in the best interests of the child without having you
looking over their shoulder every moment. A law would have to be
enacted to give you that right over the right to privacy of the CP. I
cannot imagine a congress being willing to legalize what is very likley
to become a means of harassing CPs.

Challanges for every purchase, demands for justification of every
penny, demands to know what the CP spends personal salary on etc. etc.
etc. Its far too blunt an instrument to solve what should be solved by
changing the percent of salary to a more adjustable number.

And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating
that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But
like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am
unwilling to accept the cost.

Ghostwriter

  #249  
Old December 11th 06, 10:30 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


Bob Whiteside wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.
==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the

*mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.


Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.


You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the facts.

There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights of
both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents have
done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled by
no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only one
parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the family.
This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on the
child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the parents.





No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the
financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of the
child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define
and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have
done nothing to forfeit their rights.


The reality of the situation is that someone has to make the decisions,
and those decisions cannot be nit-picked without creating a massive
overload of the system and a huge cost. The idea that both parents
should make all decisions works great in a functional marriage and even
in a divorce between mature adults. It doesnt work in a situation where
the two "adults" cant speak without arguing. The rights of the parents
cancel each other out, so the rights of the child become the only
reasonable standard.

When the two people that are charged with safeguarding the child's
interest fail to do so, the heavy hand of the state ends up having to
prevent the situation from going straight to hell.

The idea of that child support is somehow causing divorce is not
supported by any statistics I have seen. CUSTODY has a huge impact on
divorce rates, but divorced CPs have the worst average financial
situations of any demographic. The threat of poverty has a significant
effect on making people stay in failed marriages, but the presence of
child-support has no effect on causing people to leave otherwise good
marriages. It isnt a positive motivator but does lessen a negative
one.

The major issue I think you have is that child-support might cause
someone to leave a salvageable marriage, the negative consequence of
poverty being at least somewhat lessened. It is possible you are
saying that you want the father to be able to bankrupt his wife so that
she wont take the kids, but I doubt that is what you are going for.

I dont necessarily disagee with that position but that situation needs
solved long before the child-support stage. Its about teaching maturity
to kids before they become parents, not forcing kids to do without
because the parents are immature.


Ghostwriter

  #250  
Old December 11th 06, 11:43 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 139
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in

I cannot imagine a congress being willing to legalize what is very likley
to become a means of harassing CPs.


Why not, they legalized a system to harrass all NCP's?


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding Dusty Child Support 0 March 2nd 06 01:49 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Foster Parents 3 December 9th 03 12:53 AM
Kids should work. ChrisScaife Foster Parents 16 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 63 November 17th 03 11:12 PM
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U John Smith Kids Health 0 July 20th 03 04:50 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.