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
  #71  
Old November 14th 06, 05:28 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:
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


If you think the system is justified by a few misfortunate orphans,
that's about like Domino's using an eighteen wheeler to deliver
pizza's. You're not playing with a full deck are you?

  #72  
Old November 14th 06, 05:31 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
teachrmama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,905
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

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.


No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?


  #73  
Old November 14th 06, 05:36 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"P Fritz" wrote in message
...
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.

I like it. Substitute "single-parent mothers" for "foster parents" and you
have another way of solving a lot more problems.


  #74  
Old November 14th 06, 06:35 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"DB" wrote in message
et...

"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?


In a word.............. "GREED"!





  #75  
Old November 14th 06, 06:38 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.


IMPOSSIBLE! No system can force ANYONE to support their
children........................... next.








  #76  
Old November 14th 06, 07:05 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.


By far the exception rather than the rule. A broad application of your
"system" indeed. What was it you were saying about generalizations?














  #77  
Old November 14th 06, 07:32 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
CasualObserver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

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.


No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?


Nah, he doesn't care if guys like me pay, you know the type, the ones
who never had arrears and never missed any payments. He wants us to
worship him like a deity.

  #78  
Old November 14th 06, 08:29 AM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


"Gini" wrote in message
news:xla6h.1133$8u1.123@trndny04...

"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.


Thanks for clarifying that, I guess some people like Money Shyte specialize
in hand outs and charity to survive.





  #79  
Old November 14th 06, 12:02 PM 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
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.


Since you have no idea how much money he pays, nor how much is needed, your
statement above has no basis in reality.


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


Didn't say I had a problem. To me, we have the solution.





  #80  
Old November 15th 06, 04:28 PM posted to alt.child-support,alt.support.divorce
ghostwriter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 54
Default Name change because parent not visiting child


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

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.


No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's
easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different
thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting
hammered. And how is that helping at all?


And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see
your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system
does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative
the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have
ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of
society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can
support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS
to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the
system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to
suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never
willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled
with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and
enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will
get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both
money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does
without.

I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child
support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation
calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of
a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact
that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP
and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning
choice in the long run.

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 03:27 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.