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

Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old December 22nd 03, 01:01 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"ME" wrote in message .. .
"TeacherMama" wrote in message
om...
"ME" wrote in message

...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"ME" wrote in message
...


snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's

partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.
----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this

guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it

off
with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the

child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak,

scream,
louder than words.

So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with

nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying

it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt
----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay

it.

Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can

imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.
-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's

more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.

You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he

would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months,

then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another

few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so

young?
-------------------


Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their
lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the
counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the
root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people
involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad?


Noone 'blames' dad. The child's therapists have said (and is on the psych
evaluation) that the childs issues seem to be related to the choices of his
biological father. What exactly was said between the child and therpists is
not known.

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way,

Dad
owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a

week)
-----------------

snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years

old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.
-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money

she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he

have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the

poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.

When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why

he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------


And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's
attention to something more positive?


Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one
parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right
and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child
make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it.


I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of
dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to
something else.


WHY is this child, who has
never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T
have?


Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school
children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream,
playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do
these things.
Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he
sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one.


And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get
exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it?

As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have
it....children do that.


Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit
cards--are. But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And
children need to learn to accept that. This child eventually needs to
understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given
everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad,
too?


There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing
all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad.


I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible...



Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as
childhood schizophrenia or something?


no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD


Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that
dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? I have had many
such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence
in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his
behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is
taking some sort of medication to help him. And getting special help
at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD
children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it
all better.

snip for length

Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around

and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.


All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?

NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in
form of money


You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for
dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? Sit
around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a
father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible.
And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that.


What? Women can't work and earn money?

Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---


Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their
children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around
waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be
happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done,
because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option.


Women can't take children on
outings?

of course they can....


So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the
other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to
do so?

Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?

You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both
parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have
to spend time with children is what you see, to say.


Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully
involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and
the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't
happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen.

Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.


No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said
any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never
even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for
women....or any custodial parent out there.


Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric
hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Women are stuck with
sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. Hmmm... Sounds
pretty grim to me.


snip for length

This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in

the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.


Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly.

  #82  
Old December 22nd 03, 01:48 AM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one
parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this

right
and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the

child
make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about

it.

I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of
dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to
something else.


Noone said she didn't.


WHY is this child, who has
never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T
have?


Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children,

school
children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice

cream,
playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad

doesnt do
these things.
Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If

he
sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have

one.

And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get
exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it?


No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes
their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD
children

As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that

have
it....children do that.


Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit
cards--are.


OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor)

But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And
children need to learn to accept that.


Yes they do


This child eventually needs to
understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given
everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad,
too?

By far isnt given everything....


There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing
all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad.


I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible...



Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as
childhood schizophrenia or something?


no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD


Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that
dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems?


No it would definitly not

I have had many
such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence
in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his
behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is
taking some sort of medication to help him.


Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little
special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days'

And getting special help
at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD
children.

There is no magical setting or situation that can make it
all better.


Yes, I know.

snip for length

Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's.

Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit

around
and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?

NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i

said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support

in
form of money


You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for
dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do?


now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children
living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this
is about parents of small children.

Sit
around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a
father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible.
And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that.

I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech.


What? Women can't work and earn money?

Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---


Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their
children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around
waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be
happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done,
because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option.


again you took sitting around waiting too literrally....


Women can't take children on
outings?

of course they can....


So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the
other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to
do so?


do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more
with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of
picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in
this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why
doesnt dad? Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to
have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there....

Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?

You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both
parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont

have
to spend time with children is what you see, to say.


Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully
involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and
the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't
happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen.


again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the
couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the
case---

Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.


No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never

said
any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I

never
even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for
women....or any custodial parent out there.


Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric
hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there.


Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an
influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But
when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there
MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) Ya know, when Mom called Dad to
tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to
be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that
something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh
thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I
forgot.

Women are stuck with
sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing.


how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non
Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as
sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make
because you are taking everything too darn literally.



Hmmm... Sounds
pretty grim to me.





  #83  
Old December 22nd 03, 01:48 AM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one
parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this

right
and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the

child
make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about

it.

I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of
dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to
something else.


Noone said she didn't.


WHY is this child, who has
never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T
have?


Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children,

school
children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice

cream,
playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad

doesnt do
these things.
Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If

he
sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have

one.

And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get
exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it?


No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes
their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD
children

As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that

have
it....children do that.


Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit
cards--are.


OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor)

But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And
children need to learn to accept that.


Yes they do


This child eventually needs to
understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given
everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad,
too?

By far isnt given everything....


There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing
all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad.


I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible...



Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as
childhood schizophrenia or something?


no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD


Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that
dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems?


No it would definitly not

I have had many
such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence
in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his
behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is
taking some sort of medication to help him.


Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little
special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days'

And getting special help
at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD
children.

There is no magical setting or situation that can make it
all better.


Yes, I know.

snip for length

Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's.

Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit

around
and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?

NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i

said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support

in
form of money


You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for
dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do?


now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children
living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this
is about parents of small children.

Sit
around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a
father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible.
And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that.

I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech.


What? Women can't work and earn money?

Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---


Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their
children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around
waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be
happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done,
because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option.


again you took sitting around waiting too literrally....


Women can't take children on
outings?

of course they can....


So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the
other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to
do so?


do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more
with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of
picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in
this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why
doesnt dad? Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to
have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there....

Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?

You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both
parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont

have
to spend time with children is what you see, to say.


Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully
involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and
the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't
happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen.


again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the
couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the
case---

Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.


No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never

said
any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I

never
even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for
women....or any custodial parent out there.


Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric
hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there.


Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an
influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But
when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there
MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) Ya know, when Mom called Dad to
tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to
be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that
something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh
thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I
forgot.

Women are stuck with
sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing.


how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non
Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as
sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make
because you are taking everything too darn literally.



Hmmm... Sounds
pretty grim to me.





  #84  
Old December 22nd 03, 03:05 AM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a

portion
of
the finances of their ex.


I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt
have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in
there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has
no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs
when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half

the
time as in joint custody.


It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some
CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the
thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the
80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This
phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for
divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial
protocol.
For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or
unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have
to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the
children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses
instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today.
When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the
shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they
become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to
pay a reasonable and just support.


A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as

they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has

become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and

C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.


That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby

did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for

the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.


This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the
husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts
indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the
same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living
without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to
be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area.
Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible
when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance
without his approval.


Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to

give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive

to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.


Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out

of
the child's life on his/her own.


Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it
is.


When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted

no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to

changing
rules on which he has no input or control.


Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does

have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the

child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this

time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further

by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have

the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.


You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited
to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how
much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody,
then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible.
Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or
"resident parent".
Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose
state guidelines anyway.
You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you?
God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge.
Phil #3


  #85  
Old December 22nd 03, 03:05 AM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a

portion
of
the finances of their ex.


I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt
have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in
there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has
no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs
when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half

the
time as in joint custody.


It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some
CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the
thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the
80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This
phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for
divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial
protocol.
For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or
unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have
to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the
children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses
instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today.
When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the
shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they
become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to
pay a reasonable and just support.


A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as

they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has

become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and

C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.


That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby

did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for

the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.


This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the
husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts
indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the
same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living
without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to
be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area.
Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible
when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance
without his approval.


Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to

give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive

to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.


Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out

of
the child's life on his/her own.


Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it
is.


When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted

no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to

changing
rules on which he has no input or control.


Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does

have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the

child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this

time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further

by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have

the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.


You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited
to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how
much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody,
then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible.
Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or
"resident parent".
Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose
state guidelines anyway.
You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you?
God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge.
Phil #3


  #86  
Old December 22nd 03, 02:34 PM
Ronni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a

portion
of
the finances of their ex.


I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt
have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs

in
there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP

has
no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child

needs
when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half

the
time as in joint custody.


It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as

some
CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the
thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the
80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This
phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for
divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the

adversarial
protocol.
For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or
unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would

have
to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the
children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses
instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today.
When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause

the
shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they
become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered

to
pay a reasonable and just support.


A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as

they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has

become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support

their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and

C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when

with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.


That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both

parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby

did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended

up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for

the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.


This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without

the
husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts
indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in

the
same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living
without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home"

to
be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area.
Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible
when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance
without his approval.


Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them

to
give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive

to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.


Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk

out
of
the child's life on his/her own.


Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently,

it
is.


When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted

no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to

changing
rules on which he has no input or control.


Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does

have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the

child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this

time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period).

All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further

by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have

the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.


You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually

limited
to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how
much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared

custody,
then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible.
Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or
"resident parent".
Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose
state guidelines anyway.
You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you?
God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge.
Phil #3


Through this whole discussion I think I came up with one thing for sure....
Things are different where I live than where you live---and yes I am in
the US. Here judges don't over rule any agreement unless it were to be
an extreme case.




  #87  
Old December 22nd 03, 02:34 PM
Ronni
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
link.net...

[snip]

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a

portion
of
the finances of their ex.


I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt
have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs

in
there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP

has
no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child

needs
when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half

the
time as in joint custody.


It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as

some
CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the
thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the
80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This
phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for
divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the

adversarial
protocol.
For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or
unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would

have
to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the
children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses
instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today.
When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause

the
shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they
become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered

to
pay a reasonable and just support.


A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as

they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has

become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support

their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and

C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when

with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.


That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both

parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby

did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended

up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for

the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.


This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without

the
husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts
indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in

the
same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living
without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home"

to
be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area.
Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible
when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance
without his approval.


Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them

to
give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive

to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.


Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk

out
of
the child's life on his/her own.


Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently,

it
is.


When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted

no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to

changing
rules on which he has no input or control.


Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does

have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the

child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this

time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period).

All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further

by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have

the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.


You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually

limited
to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how
much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared

custody,
then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible.
Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or
"resident parent".
Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose
state guidelines anyway.
You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you?
God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge.
Phil #3


Through this whole discussion I think I came up with one thing for sure....
Things are different where I live than where you live---and yes I am in
the US. Here judges don't over rule any agreement unless it were to be
an extreme case.




  #88  
Old December 22nd 03, 06:54 PM
Kathi Kelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Kenneth S." writes:
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.


Oops, my mistake. Apologies.


However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving
reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of
giving post-conception reproductive choices to men.


Agreed.

  #89  
Old December 22nd 03, 06:54 PM
Kathi Kelly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Kenneth S." writes:
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.


Oops, my mistake. Apologies.


However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving
reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of
giving post-conception reproductive choices to men.


Agreed.

  #90  
Old December 23rd 03, 03:36 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Carry On" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 17:54:33 GMT, (Kathi Kelly) wrote:


"Kenneth S." writes:
In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not
RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is
-- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the
birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product.


Oops, my mistake. Apologies.


You were not mistaken. It is an early pregnancy abortion-inducing
agent. All of the articles I've seen refer to it in exactly that
manner and I have seen nothing that suggests its a contraceptive of
any kind since its intended use is for _after_ contraception has taken
place, not prior to or to prevent fertilization of an egg.

While RU 486 is comprised of female hormones that has no bearing on
its function or intended use. The intent of taking the RU 486 pill is
to abort a fertilized embryo prior to its implantation in the uterus.


No one here disputes RU-486 (Mifepristone) creates non-surgical abortions.
It is a drug that is taken after a pregnancy has occured to cause the woman
to abort the fetus.

This discussion has been about Plan B (Levonorgestrel) which is an emergency
contraceptive to be taken after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy from
occuring and it works much like some birth control pills.

While both are commonly referred to as morning after pills, they are not the
same. Plan B must be taken within the first 72 hours after unprotected sex
to have a chance to be successful. Because it creates a hostile environment
in a woman's uterus the woman will either lose the fertilized egg or have a
tubal pregnancy. If Plan B does not work, then a woman who doesn't want to
be pregnant can use RU-486.


 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 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.