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
  #61  
Old November 13th 06, 06:09 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


P Fritz wrote:
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.


In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

Ghostwriter

  #62  
Old November 13th 06, 07:29 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Chris" wrote in message
...

"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?


Because not *all* fathers voluntarily support their children.











  #63  
Old November 13th 06, 09:14 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
ps.com...

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.


See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html

There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together into
the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from social
workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income" but
the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so many
cases with missing data on income factors.

What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect
occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases CS
does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public money
benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the public
money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same
amount of welfare benefits.

A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The
average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month.
Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public
money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not going to
change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty is
when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the amount
over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table 4.



  #64  
Old November 14th 06, 01:40 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
P Fritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Name change because parent not visiting child

Bob Whiteside wrote:

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

Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
glegroups.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.



See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html

There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together into
the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from social
workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income" but
the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so many
cases with missing data on income factors.

What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect
occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases CS
does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public money
benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the public
money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same
amount of welfare benefits.

A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The
average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month.
Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public
money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not going to
change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty is
when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the amount
over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table 4.




A very few foster parents abuse the kids, The fact that the system
needs to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible
is not because good foster parenmts should be penalized, its that not
enough resources exist to weed the good foster parents from the bad and
that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad
foster parents to abuse the kids and being overly harsh on
the good good foster parents, I freely and willing choice the harsh system.
  #65  
Old November 14th 06, 01:42 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Because not *all* fathers voluntarily support their children.



Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the
problem?


  #66  
Old November 14th 06, 02:06 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Moon Shyne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 427
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"DB" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Because not *all* fathers voluntarily support their children.



Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the
problem?


And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children. I'm
doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father does
his part, too.





  #67  
Old November 14th 06, 02:25 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
P Fritz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default Name change because parent not visiting child

ghostwriter wrote:

P Fritz wrote:

Bob Whiteside wrote:


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...


teachrmama wrote:


"ghostwriter" wrote in message
glegroups.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.



In our society money=options,


BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist

money = incentive of more of the same




a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.





I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

Ghostwriter

  #68  
Old November 14th 06, 03:23 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in
Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the
problem?


And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children.
I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father
does his part, too.


Yes, as long as his part is to pay more money than you actually need, I
guess that's OK with you.

Funny, my father didn't need any system to support 3 kids on one income,
what's your problem?


  #69  
Old November 14th 06, 04:02 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"DB" wrote

"Moon Shyne" wrote in
Woman now have an equal chance to support their children, what's the
problem?


And all parents have an equal responsibility to support their children.
I'm doing my part, and I'll let "the system" make sure that their father
does his part, too.


Yes, as long as his part is to pay more money than you actually need, I
guess that's OK with you.

Funny, my father didn't need any system to support 3 kids on one income,
what's your problem?

==
It's called "entitlement," (control) The system has convinced women that
they are entitled to a share of the man's
income and characterizes them as fools if they don't seek/accept it. This
is most striking in the comment
we hear frequently he I don't care how much he pays--He's GOING to pay
SOMETHING!
They have lost all motivation to be financially independent of the father
and can't understand the strength and dignity
of mothers who refuse to play the game--refuse support and share physical
custody. They just don't get it, and it is such
a worthwhile manner of existence. Sad. Even tragic.


  #70  
Old November 14th 06, 05:12 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
CasualObserver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


ghostwriter wrote:
P Fritz wrote:
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.


In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of
a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of
destitution.


Resources are freely given to illegals and it's depriving our citizens
of options.

I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and
frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement
that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really
make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child
support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the
households on the edge have more money and therefor more options.

Ghostwriter


 




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 12:41 PM.


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.