If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Hyerdahl" wrote in message oups.com... Meldon Fens wrote: "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... ..... Govts. only have so much money for social services and children will get that money long before fathers do. Wrong Hyderstench. WOMEN get the money. Order of priority for funds for training and employment is, women, youth, minorities, handicapped. You're so full of crap I can smell you from here. Your previous points are hardly worth discussing. Anyone can see how painfully skewed they are but keep up the good work. So far the big bag of lies is working fine. Ignore these internet freaks and poofters living in grandpappy's cellar on welfare. Ignore the law and if you're pushed too far just leave the country. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ps.com... Meldon Fens wrote: In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty. Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least, low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and for employment. [Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ] Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy. Let's take an average person earning $30K per year. Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000. Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of $15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live, including paying for a vehicle to see his kids. [A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.] Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any application to court which is not self-represented will be next to financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject poverty. [Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.] Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers, ignoring the best interests of the chidren. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services and children will get that money long before fathers do. Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and foreign interests get money before fathers do! Illegal aliens, their kids and as many relatives that they can get into the country. The kids get free schooling at $10k per year per head, medicaid and a hundred other benefits. You owe no loyalty to this government or it's kangaroo courts because they are not operating in YOUR interest. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Hyerdahl wrote: Meldon Fens wrote: Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services and children will get that money long before fathers do. Sometimes it is not in the child's best interest to see their mothers either, but despite the fact that women are at least as likely to abuse children as men (women are actually considerably higher in terms of negligence and physical abuse, IIRC), women still seem to end up winning ~95% of custody cases. To the best of my knowledge, I have yet to hear any authority explain why this is the case. A. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... "Col. Tuttle USAF NI" Col. Tuttle USAF ash.us wrote in message news:molIg.20972$tP4.15290@clgrps12... .... People like him like to remain willfuly ignorant on these issues.....their scum! Hyderpork is a guy? who cares: the fact is government terrorism and slavery is a crime |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Avenger" wrote in message news:t8sIg.36430$NF3.7510@trnddc05... "Hyerdahl" wrote in message ups.com... Werebat wrote: Hyerdahl wrote: Meldon Fens wrote: In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty. Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least, low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and for employment. [Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. In response to this according to the BC Supreme court of Appeals, fathers have no rights to their children, let alone have rights within the courts, but as three judges said dads are obligated to support their children. This to me sound like slavery and just another extortion ring used by government criminals to justify raping freedoms and rights, for their sick pleasure of molesting dads.. .. Not if they didn't give the female permission IN WRITING to get pregnant. And govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ] Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy. Let's take an average person earning $30K per year. Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000. Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of $15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live, including paying for a vehicle to see his kids. [A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time than a mother who is doing the child care. Working is not free time although females view work as an opportunity to get out of the house, have fun and socialise to find men. To a female work must be fun or they don't like it haha Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work. Easier solution. Disappear before you're made into a slave supporting your former wife, her kids and her boyfriend lol Plan well ahead and take all assets you can get your hands on ) Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.] Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any application to court which is not self-represented will be next to financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject poverty. [Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.] Ditch the bitch and take off. Don't permit yourself to be dictated to. Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers, ignoring the best interests of the chidren. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see their fathers. As I said ditch them all. Don't play by arbitrary rules because you'll end up old,grey and penniless and the kids will still hate you lol Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services and children will get that money long before fathers do. Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as mentioned above? Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or judicial experience in family court to debate these issues? Absolutely. Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here? I have no need to tell you my experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above. Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza delivery person. :-) You're not even that but a miscreant living free in grandpappy's cellar and collecting welfare. Right poofy? I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet, at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure, every system has it's occasional problems..." Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not mere stories about some fathers. I prefer fact to fiction. We men will proceed as WE see fit ) - Ron ^*^ |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"pandora" wrote in message news:17SdnQd9hKhllG_ZnZ2dnUVZ_oGdnZ2d@scnresearch. com... "Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... "Werebat" wrote in message news:V%kIg.2199$Zm1.1201@dukeread02... .. Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet, at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure, every system has it's occasional problems..." - Ron ^*^ Just see how effective that argument is for a father driven into poverty. The best he can hope for is a bunch of grunts followed by a bunch of laughter. We're all catching on though. That laughter is strained at best and is a thinly veiled disguise for a fear that the truth will be uncovered and all that funding dries up. What will the fat, gold-digging whores do then? They'll stop marrying your asses and spewing out your brats. Marg It appears you've acknowledged the true relationship between government funding and procreation. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
teachrmama wrote: (edit) Heck, Hy, *everyone* gets money before fathers do. Illegal aliens and foreign interests get money before fathers do! Well, I'm all for the kind of immigration system they have in Australia....but first you have to convince your 'governators, and congress critters', and they're all in bed with the Republicans, no? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Gini wrote: "Werebat" wrote Hyerdahl wrote: .................... I prefer fact to fiction. But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl. == Hyerdahl has mistaken common knowledge for fact--Kinda like Columbus discovered America. It happens to those who prefer not to engage in independent inquiry. College freshmen are like that. They come in with all manner of misconception. The first thing they should be taught is to forget everything they learned in high school. And the second thing is to forget everything they learn from men's rights groups. :-) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
The other side of the coin is to persevere if possible. It can have its'
rewards. The combination of a loving and sincere relationship with one's kids can "bring them home" so to speak. I wonder how many children have gladly changed residence at an age where child support flowing in the other direction brings at least some equity to what is for all intent and purpose, gender based discrimination. To everything, there is a season and a time for every purpose. "Avenger" wrote in message news:yXrIg.2036$pX3.106@trnddc07... Stop trying to reason with the unreasonable fascists. Any man who finds himself in the situation you describe should just change his identity or leave the country and be done with it.You can't be extridited or even arrested outside US jurisdiction for these sort of petty civil contempt charges. And English teachers are in great demand among the wealthy (and not so wealthy) in many countries so you would have easy employment teaching their kids. Cash, no taxes and about $50 an hour. Knowledge of the local language is not required and in fact you earn more if you don't speak it because the person you're teaching is forced to speak English only and will learn faster.Parents like their kids to be taught this way especially in Russia, Taiwan etc I was just giving an example because men usually have many money making skills even outside their field of expertise. Easy choice,no? "Meldon Fens" wrote in message ... In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty. Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least, low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and for employment. Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy. Let's take an average person earning $30K per year. Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000. Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of $15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live, including paying for a vehicle to see his kids. Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any application to court which is not self-represented will be next to financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject poverty. Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers, ignoring the best interests of the chidren. How long can this continue? |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
Werebat wrote: Hyerdahl wrote: Werebat wrote: Hyerdahl wrote: Meldon Fens wrote: In their current form, Child Support laws are driving fathers into poverty. Non-custodial parents, primarily fathers, become unable to see their kids and the kids lose the child support they are entitled to. At the very least, low income fathers should be given some priority for government funding and for employment. [Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. And govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. ] Here are the simple economics of child support and how economic oppression ruins fathers' lives and any chance at normalcy. Let's take an average person earning $30K per year. Child Support is based on pre-tax income. At this level and in most countries, he will be required to pay between $250 and $300 per month per child, equivalent to between $3000 and $3600 per year. He is taxed in most countries at approximately %20 equivalent to $6000 (a conservative estimate). As a result he will take home slightly more than $20,000. Should he find himself in arrears with Child Support, he must pay up to but no more than half of his gross income. In this example the equivalent of $15,000 per year. He is left with $5000 per year with which to live, including paying for a vehicle to see his kids. [A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time than a mother who is doing the child care. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here.] Child Support laws require that any reduction in child support must show three criteria for actual hardship one being that the Child Support is causing the hardship. To do so, he needs to make an application to court which takes a considerable amount of financial resources. In fact, any application to court which is not self-represented will be next to financially impossible including defence of false allegations of domestic abuse or anything else the "mother" can think of to drive him into abject poverty. [Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change.] Most fathers do anything they can to continue paying child support and to see their kids. Most would not argue that they should be contributing financially toward their kids but there is no help available for these low income fathers. Something must be done for low income fathers facing debtor's prison and losing contact with their kids. It is after all with few exceptions, in the child's best interest to continue to see their fathers but government and advocacy groups do nothing for low income fathers, ignoring the best interests of the chidren. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in that category. Govts. only have so much money for social services and children will get that money long before fathers do. Hyerdahl, what is your family court and CSE experience? Why would that be pertinent to my OPINION based on the FACTS as mentioned above? So, you aren't going to answer my question? No. I don't consider it any of your business. My facts are true, regardless, or you would have been able to rufute them regardless of your self aggrandizement. Do you _really_ think you must have litigation or judicial experience in family court to debate these issues? No, of course not, but IME the vast majority of people who choose to comment on the present family court situation have had some experience with it, or a group connected to it in some way. If you don't find my comments worthy of debate you are free to address them or not. It's up to you, but I have no intention of listing a resume here. :-) Or are you just self-aggrandizing, here? You've made it clear that that's what you think. No, not really. I simply don't find it reasonable to debate based on your alleged title. I prefer debate on the facts or some kind of provable opinons. I have no need to tell you my experience in order to tell you the facts that I have placed above. Let's examine those fact, shall we? You claim: 1. Fathers are, and should be, obligated to support their children. No problem with this one as stated, but the devil is in the details. First, this statement -- like the federal forms that need to be signed when a child is born out of wedlock in order to get the father's name on the birth certificate -- makes no mention of the *mother's* obligation to support her children. Do you think that mothers should also be obligated to support their children? Actually, both parents are equally obligated to support their children. Mothers often take over the primary care because they have done so prior to divorce, and judges like to maintain what the couple themselves put into action. If a mother is already providing support, in terms of her primary care, that leaves the other parent to do some of the child support. Also, the Devil's detail is the definition of "support" and the extent of "support" that a father and mother is obligated to provide for their child. Well, if both the father and mother work outside the home, the judge can certainly take that into consideration. I think almost everyone on these forums would agree that parents should support their children. I agree with that broad statement. That doesn't mean that I think the current family court and CS system isn't horribly flawed. I don't think it is flawed from what I have observed. It appears to me that judges like to support what the parents have put into action wherever possible. Courts assume that parents intend to do right by their kids, unless there are issues of abuse or neglect. Another fact you claim: 2. Govt. funding tends to go TO children who are not being supported by fathers. OK. I have no reason to argue about this. Indeed, and it would seem that there's not even enough of that funding to meet obligations. Your third claimed fact: 3. A father who isn't living with his kids certainly has more free time than a mother who is doing the child care. A father who works full-time and then cares for the kids 30% of the time, which is the standard for NCP awards, may well have less free time than a mother who doesn't work and has the kids 70% of the time. He also won't often have free time on the weekends like she will. You're assuming things. First, most fathers who are not paying child support at all, also don't spend much (if any) time with their kids. Many fathers abandon kids and don't see them at all. I guess those fathers have lots more free time. Secondly, many mothers also work, at least part time, so when you couple that with child rearing, it doesn't leave much time. And let's not forget that if you have little ones at home, that isn't a 9-5 job. It's 24-7. Some fathers ONLY take the kids on weekends. Other fathers only take the kids every other weekend. If you mean a father who never sees his kids, well, sure. That doesn't mean that the family courts are just or treat anyone in a fair way, though. Life is not always fair, and adults tend to understand that. In the case of best interests of kids, courts seem to try to do what's best for them whether or not it works well for the parents. Your fourth claimed fact: 4. Such a father could even get a part time job or educate himself to get better paid work. Trying to blame arrearages on his children is not the answer here. I didn't see anyone trying to blame arrearages on the children. Where did this come from? Looks like your playing a weasel-word game here. Well, who ARE you blaming then? Whose fault is it when daddy gets behind? How do the kids eat when dad doesn't do his part, and why shouldn't he pay for it? Your fifth claimed fact: 5. Oh 'puleeeeeeze'; no one is going to buy THAT sob story. Pay your child support and be done with it. The court is there to assess both income and hardships, and it isn't likely to change. It is indeed the court's responsbility to assess income and hardships, and indeed that isn't likely to change. That doesn't mean that the court is doing its job adequately, however, now does it? You have offered NOTHING to make us think otherwise tho...you have provided no evidence or support for any of your claims here, just bellyaching. Your sixth claimed fact: 6. Actually, the child's "best interests" are determined on a case by case basis and sometimes it is NOT in a child's "best interests" to see their fathers. Fathers who are abusive or negligent are certainly in that category. Yep. I agree with you. But when the courts abuse their power and remove men who have NOT been abusive or negligent from the lives of their kids, the courts are harming both fathers and children. Can you name a father who should not have been denied? Do you have a case we can review, because you have failed to offer any substantive evidence for your position. You are making statements that are impossible for rational people to disagree with, but the statements don't really contradict anything that the OP says. My statements rely on FACT, yours only on emotion. I prefer logic to emotion every time. Facts are facts whether a judge gives them or even a humble pizza delivery person. :-) I believe I have told you mine and you never comment on it; I suspect you'd like to Again, I don't remember who you say you are, but I do recall a poster named Steve Imparl who had no logical fact or debate who used to like to tell me he was a barrister. sweep the real stories of government abuse of fathers under the carpet, at best giving them a dimissive nod and a comment like, "well, sure, every system has it's occasional problems..." Again, I don't recall what experience you say you have, but those things that I have mentioned above are FACTS about family law and not mere stories about some fathers. Facts that don't actually have much to do with the very real complaints that many fathers have about their treatment in the family courts. I prefer fact to fiction. But you have to look at the WHOLE truth, Hyerdahl. You haven't me given any provable "truth" to look at, tho. Jesus, if what you offered here was a meal, I'd be a starving person. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCP ACTION ALERT!!! NY Shared Parenting bill under attack!! | Dusty | Child Support | 4 | March 8th 06 06:45 AM |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
Child Support Guidelines are UNFAIR! Lets join together to fight them! | S Myers | Child Support | 115 | September 12th 05 12:37 AM |
Child Support Policy and the Welfare of Women and Children | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | May 13th 04 12:46 AM |
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA | Fighting for kids | Child Support | 21 | November 17th 03 01:35 AM |