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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Phil #3" wrote in message hlink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? Agreed...there should be some spending guidelines as in the other payments you mentioned. Very good point made If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. I see the point. Tougher (stricter) rules and some guidelines would surely help this. You say "CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own" BUT now think of this, when a CP files for say welfare help, social security/disability, or other state help as in say legal services, or child day care services they DO count the child support payment as the CP's income. So therefore in the eyes of the state (at least here) child support IS CP's income.... I am not saying that its right...please don't start thrashing my opinions because you think that now, too. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. And the definition of 'neglect' should not be different for someone who is considered poor, middleman, or rich. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging CP gouging the CS system? So since CP has custody NCP should not have to help in the financial aspect of raising the child? I agree the system is not fair, it never has been, never will be...but CP has every right to CS from NCP, maybe in some cases (or more than some) the CP is getting more than he/she needs, but NCP can't just forget how much it costs to raise a child...If both parties wanted to be fair to each other they would go to the CS hearing and agree between them on a fair amount...if they can't agree (here anyway) that is when and only when the hearing officer takes income/expense sheets and figures the CS to be paid from NCP to CP. the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Phil #3" wrote in message hlink.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? Agreed...there should be some spending guidelines as in the other payments you mentioned. Very good point made If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. I see the point. Tougher (stricter) rules and some guidelines would surely help this. You say "CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own" BUT now think of this, when a CP files for say welfare help, social security/disability, or other state help as in say legal services, or child day care services they DO count the child support payment as the CP's income. So therefore in the eyes of the state (at least here) child support IS CP's income.... I am not saying that its right...please don't start thrashing my opinions because you think that now, too. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. And the definition of 'neglect' should not be different for someone who is considered poor, middleman, or rich. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging CP gouging the CS system? So since CP has custody NCP should not have to help in the financial aspect of raising the child? I agree the system is not fair, it never has been, never will be...but CP has every right to CS from NCP, maybe in some cases (or more than some) the CP is getting more than he/she needs, but NCP can't just forget how much it costs to raise a child...If both parties wanted to be fair to each other they would go to the CS hearing and agree between them on a fair amount...if they can't agree (here anyway) that is when and only when the hearing officer takes income/expense sheets and figures the CS to be paid from NCP to CP. the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very, very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.) There are significant questions about whether the 15% father custody number is even valid. Most statisitcs I have seen take the 85% mother custody number and assume the other 15% are fathers with custody. However, the national CSE office reports their client base receiving CS payments is made up of 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% other non-biological parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. BTW - The Census does not use words like "joint custody." Instead, the Census report measures "Parents living with their own children under 21 years of age whose other parent is not living in the home." By this definition, the Census excludes the national OSE office group of 7% non-biological parents receiving CS. So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. As for how I have tracked these numbers, in the first place, you only need to look around you. And, despite what you say, you will find very, very few custodial fathers. Secondly, when I first started to be involved in these issues more than 10 years ago, a member of the fathers' group that I belonged to conducted his own research into custody awards in the one of the counties in this area. He found that over a period of several years, not a single father had been awarded custody over the mother's objections, except in a few unusual cases where there was some serious problem with the mother, such as her being a drug addict. The 15 percent figure, the highest I have seen, comes from a federal agency -- to the best of my recollection, the Census Bureau. (I don't know how they handle joint custody.) There are significant questions about whether the 15% father custody number is even valid. Most statisitcs I have seen take the 85% mother custody number and assume the other 15% are fathers with custody. However, the national CSE office reports their client base receiving CS payments is made up of 85% mothers, 8% fathers, and 7% other non-biological parent such as aunts, uncles, and grandparents. BTW - The Census does not use words like "joint custody." Instead, the Census report measures "Parents living with their own children under 21 years of age whose other parent is not living in the home." By this definition, the Census excludes the national OSE office group of 7% non-biological parents receiving CS. So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net... "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for calling attention to efforts to fudge the question. A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial parents. One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know several fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did. Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and custodial parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about the issue. Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents are mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial fathers even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers of their children. They are more than content to have custody.) Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations, it is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and should be counted as such in the numbers. I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to your list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim maternal custody is the only correct way for children to be raised. I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the children are better off with their fathers. I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments. (You know the old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method ignores that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families, widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews from their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And most importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the vast majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed households. okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your original arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of CP are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children who live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have 85 apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you have much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled children come from mothers households. There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of percentages - it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority of troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children) do not represent a significant number of "troubled children." To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400 apples, and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples, not 85 out of 100 apples. The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when they are raised in two-parent households. And the 21.7 million children raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school dropouts, teen suicides, etc. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Phil:
You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Phil:
You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Phil: You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.) For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS order who is actually being paid by the mother. As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my daughter (I had custody of my son). Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of $ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system. It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject. For another, she could spend the money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter was with me. I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and family. To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just that I did leave. Fair? Not in the least bit.... Phil #3 wrote: "ME" wrote in message ... "Kenneth S." wrote in message .. [snip] So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay mothers, because of the custody situation. If any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, the system would change very quickly -- or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid child support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY changed. So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay fathers....so child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the custodial parent' I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent between child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise children that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child support. Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is spent or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit directly and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security and AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no? If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay child support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the clothing on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play with, the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not eat healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around in a vehicle that is unsafe.... Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children every time they send that check. This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life better by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when the CP uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise, meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her own. As long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached (which is hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or even looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the majority of C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is impossible to change the situation either legally or actually. If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives, there would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for whatever the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children as long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of "neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those at every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month. Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not always. This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this. Non custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent a give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B gets so mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc while she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of the CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support.... I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every case does.... Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the norm remains. In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system is normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the norm. [snip] Phil #3 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|