Name change because parent not visiting child

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




No guilt or innocence exists in this case since no one have ever been
convicted of anything. But a harsh system does insure that fewer
single mother households fail in the long run. They simply are higher
on my priorities than you are.


No it doesn't. Those men who do not want to pay find ways to not pay
anyway. No system is going to solve that problem. And by punishing the
innocent to try to catch the guilty, you are simply creating anger among
those who have been so punished for no reason. You may feel that your
"priorities" are wonderful. I don't think you have though this through
thoroughly.

Of course he hasn't, and never will.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:l2Q5h.1052$8u1.236@trndny04...

"teachrmama" wrote

He didn't come to California, did he? We don't need any more of that
here!
==
The man who attacked and disabled me in 1998 served his full sentence in
state
prison (5 years) and now lives 10 miles down the road from me. There
isn't a
damn thing I can do about it.

That is so creepy!! Do you ever see him around? Has he ever spologized? I
don't know if I could handle that!

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.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.

"teachrmama" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"teachrmama" wrote

He didn't come to California, did he? We don't need any more of that
here!
==
The man who attacked and disabled me in 1998 served his full sentence in
state
prison (5 years) and now lives 10 miles down the road from me. There
isn't a
damn thing I can do about it.

That is so creepy!! Do you ever see him around? Has he ever spologized?
I don't know if I could handle that!
==
I haven't seen him yet. He knows I have a lot of really big men around whom
I'm sure he'd rather
not run into so I really don't expect to see him. He did attempt to
apologize to my son via another
person but that didn't set too well with my son. He didn't apologize to me
in court.
I have spent the last several years telling my boys, my ex, and my husband
to not retaliate against
him as that would make me a victim again. OTOH, I'm not sure what *I* would
do if I saw him.
I would certainly not be so vulnerable again. I am now puppy shopping. I
bought a standard poodle
puppy this spring before I knew the guy was in the area, and he is already
very protective.
I'm also considering a Bullmastiff, Rottie or Doberman. Aside from that, I
have chosen to live my life
peacefully. I'm appropriately cautious but not paranoid (heh, thanks, in
part, to years of therapy ;-).

"Gini" wrote in message
news:EXR5h.3081$fk2.1288@trndny02...

"teachrmama" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"teachrmama" wrote

He didn't come to California, did he? We don't need any more of that
here!
==
The man who attacked and disabled me in 1998 served his full sentence in
state
prison (5 years) and now lives 10 miles down the road from me. There
isn't a
damn thing I can do about it.

That is so creepy!! Do you ever see him around? Has he ever spologized?
I don't know if I could handle that!
==
I haven't seen him yet. He knows I have a lot of really big men around
whom I'm sure he'd rather
not run into so I really don't expect to see him. He did attempt to
apologize to my son via another
person but that didn't set too well with my son. He didn't apologize to me
in court.
I have spent the last several years telling my boys, my ex, and my husband
to not retaliate against
him as that would make me a victim again. OTOH, I'm not sure what *I*
would do if I saw him.
I would certainly not be so vulnerable again. I am now puppy shopping. I
bought a standard poodle
puppy this spring before I knew the guy was in the area, and he is already
very protective.
I'm also considering a Bullmastiff, Rottie or Doberman. Aside from that, I
have chosen to live my life
peacefully. I'm appropriately cautious but not paranoid (heh, thanks, in
part, to years of therapy ;-).

Hopefully he has been rehabilitated and no longer possesses the violent
tendencies that brought on the attack. Nonetheless, a big, fierce dog
sounds like a very good idea. Pepper spray does, too!

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.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:l2Q5h.1052$8u1.236@trndny04...

"teachrmama" wrote

He didn't come to California, did he? We don't need any more of that
here!
==
The man who attacked and disabled me in 1998 served his full sentence in
state
prison (5 years) and now lives 10 miles down the road from me. There
isn't a
damn thing I can do about it.

Sure there is - you could move.

ghostwriter wrote:
CasualObserver wrote:
ghostwriter wrote:
wrote:
Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia.

My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt
want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the
world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem
with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing
affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this
person who shares his last name. It's just sad.

Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be
best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he doesnt
really seem to care.

I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient
reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would be
very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont necessarily
need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer.

If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he
wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have
nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his son.

Ghostwriter


The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she
doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't
imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if he's
not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So
if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father
child-support services shill, then let's go...

Alright lets go,

I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling
a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took
your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP.

My ex's face, no. Experiences, most certainly.
I'm from a divorced family and also went through the family court
system as an adult in a different state than I currently reside.
Over the past few decades I have operated several family owned
businesses and have seen well over a thousand employees come and go.
Some of the employees were in high school, most in college or
older, and collectively with a wide range of family situations.
I would hear family issues personally or through management
of just about anything you can imagine.


My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to
wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers
them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments.
Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME
OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for
a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he
wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother
getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag,
THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE.

If the child's last name was causing a lot of teasing at school or
something then I could see the child being upset. However, if the child
was inquiring why his name is different then I'm very sure most mom's
could explain it in a way that the child wouldn't feel traumatized.
We both don't really know for sure what the mother's real intentions
are. But if I were to read her like a poker hand, it would be that
she is upset that the father doesn't visit and wants to get his
attention,
punish him for it, or a little of both. She also indicated her and the
father get along for the most part and you know the relationship could
easily be damaged. Maybe you think she should thank you for your prison
guard approach?

I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories
of
sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to
tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far
too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good
fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get
to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my
door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS,
they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior
to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into
poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their
child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather
than in my care.

It's just plain wrong to punish all fathers because of the horrible
acts of a few. Your logic is sick and twisted.

So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation
with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching.

Yes I could tell a 10 year old girl that the entire world shouldn't
have
be punished because of the terrible acts committed against her by her
daddy. I had a similar conversation several years back with a few
college
girls. One went on to live a very happy and normal life, the others
still struggle with it a bit.

If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is
that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it
that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the
failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end
up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown.

Please by all means punish the actual abusers.

That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could
be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few
months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father.

ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN
SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY
WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL.

Before the system was invented, broken homes were rare. Now
the more money the system gets, the bigger the problem gets. The
system needs fixing not the majority of fathers.


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.

Did it ever occur to you that many children grow-up fatherless
because daddy was beaten down by government? It's time once again
to allow good fathers to be fathers.

Ghostwriter

PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st
foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life
and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I
am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases.

Best wishes to you and your family.

P.S. My comment about the mother asking for the name change
as an admission of her not wanting the father involved in
the childs life...it wasn't an attack on her, it was on you.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
Considering what you wrote about not caring about the fathers that are
hurt by the system, my wish for you is that you find yourself (or
someone you love) in a situation where you have done nothing wrong,
but
you are being egregiously harmed because other people have done
something wrong. When you have actually experienced that which you are
so casually dismissing as being worth the price, then, perhaps, you
can
come back and share.

Hmmm, you mean like the CP mothers who are castigated, accused of being
greedy, lazy, and all manner of things, because SOME CP mothers are
that
way?

Those kind of generalizations?

You haven't seen me do that, Moon. I think both sides of the issue have
victims. It is not a good system.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say that YOU were guilty of it - but you have to
admit, CP's come here at their own peril - and all too many posters here
insist that all CP's are terrible people who are ruining their children -
and I really dislike broad generalizations of any kind.

While it may not be a good system, having gone through a number of years
without the system (it's pretty impossible to do a wage assignment on
someone who's self-employed), this is far better.

Because?

Bob Whiteside wrote:
"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.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.

Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the
fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into
poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their
wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the
total, a very small percentage.

The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of
those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be
pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good
fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the
small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on
the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system.

I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out
of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I
can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they
are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of
anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was
blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse
of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification.

Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data
maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information
please share.

I dont disagree with the people that have major issues with paying for
a ex that wont work, nor do I think that payments should drive someone
into bankrupcy. I do however want the assumtions to be harsh and the
burden of proof to stay with the NCP. I suppose that I should mention
that I couldnt care less if the custodian parent is the mother or
father, but honestly placements with fathers are less of an issue since
finding paying work is easier for a healthly man(at any level of
education) than it is for a woman at the lowest levels of education.

By the way socialism would have the government paying for everything
these children need and then taxing the entire population to pay for
it, that is specifically what I am arguing against. A free market
economy is based on the concept that the movement of money creates
wealth.

But, I dont mind paying for a welfare state system, it keeps my
children from being mugged by a desperate orphan.

Ghostwriter