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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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! |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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 ;-). |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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! |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
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. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
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. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"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? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |