View Single Post
  #4  
Old January 30th 04, 09:08 AM
jd hoeye
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default I was wrong, Bob

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 18:52:44 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" =
wrote:

snip

i mean mass delete as in -: *.*


if you were to read the following citations...

418.147 Policy on absent parent. (1) The Legislative Assembly declares =
that the policy of this state is that, to the extent consistent with =
federal law, the temporary assistance for needy families program policy =
and practice shall recognize that an absent parent is often an important =
influence in the life of a child.

(2) Program policy and practice:

(a) Shall recognize that regular, frequent visits with absent parents are=
often in the best interests of needy children;

(b) Shall not interfere with the continuing relationship of absent =
parents with their children, whether the parents are temporarily or =
permanently out of the homes of their children; and

(c) Shall not restrict parents in adopting plans that they consider to be=
in the best interests of their children. [1987 c.3 =A710; 1997 c.581 =
=A737]

418.149 When child deprived of parental support of absent parent; effect =
of joint custody decree. (1) For purposes of ORS 418.035, where a parent =
is living out of the home in which the child resides, it shall be assumed=
that the child is deprived of parental support or care by reason of the =
continued absence of the parent unless:

(a) The parent visits the child in the child's home more than four times =
per week or more than a total of 12 hours per week; and

(b) The functioning of the parent as a provider of maintenance, physical =
care and guidance is not interrupted or terminated as a result of absence=
of the parent from the home.

(2) A determination that a needy child is not deprived of parental =
support or care by reason of the continued absence of a parent shall not =
be based solely on an award by a court of joint legal custody. [1987 c.3 =
=A7=A711,12]


of Oregon Revised Statutes wherein what an absent parent (ie: absent =
parent translates to, the parent who the law requires monetary =
remuneration - owes, is liable for, and is extorted for - CS...) the =
authority upon all other laws, actions etc. are based upon, give rise =
to...

in other words, within the above cited sections respective paragraphs, it=
is possible rationally deduce, logically extract, the conditions under =
which a parent is defined not an absent parent; and, that any parent not =
meeting the criteria of an absent parent; and, who does meet the minimal =
requirements of a present parent thereby meets the criteria under which =
no liability for CS may attach regardless of the incursion of expense on =
behalf on for the benefit of that parents child(ren) by any public or =
private entity(s) or person(s) as may arise for any cause.

the catch... yea, there's always one of those... active, personal, =
participation, presence and accessability are required! Imagine that... =
an active, participating, parent is not to be interfered with or subject =
to extortion, etc. Denial of comfort and/or affection to or from the =
other parent neither withstanding nor prevailing therein under any =
authority of law in equity or fact... UNLESS both parents make it an =
issue by raising and/or responding to questions thereto and/or of...

in other words marital condition is IRRELEVANT to the issue of a parents =
presence, availability to and responsive parenting interaction with their=
children unless both parents make it an issue by interactively raising =
the issue pre-emptive to, upon which, parenting is dependent; subordinate=
to; therefore, dependent upon.

Interesting: a court cannot make an order incumbering a child's access to=
it's parent no matter how long, loud or diligently one parent may so =
petition therefore so long as the other makes no response to that issue, =
and maintains themselves willingly and consistently accessible to the =
child(ren) - denial of actual contact by the other parent not =
withstanding... (there are some sticky wickets to field in that =
eventuality through documenting 'due diligence' (read: effort.)

remember this:=20
it takes two to tango, procreate and fornicate;
likewise it takes two to disagree, argue, antagonize and/or become =
combative with.

it's not real tough to get the idea.
it's no mental effort to understand.

put your children first; really, first; the child(ren)'s needs always =
precluding any need(s) the parent may have (read: parent(s) want(s) - =
children have needs) is all it takes... (not to mention all it takes to =
be a parent at all, single, couple, triad, quartet, etc. not withstanding=
(read relevant).)=20

Dissagree? That's your choice; OK by me; live with it; and step to the =
pay window, please.

In My Humble (NOT) Anti CS (read: pro parenting) Opinion.

Oh! Gee!



--
JD
--
If the Facts Fail to=20
Support Your Position
Manipulate the Data
--