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 |
#1341
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... snip. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. You know, salt is called 'salt'. "Deadbeat dad who never sees his kids and dumps all the work on me" is "deadbeat dad who never sees his kids and dumps all the work on me" No, that's the label that some other person stuck on the man. "Poor longsuffering mother who has to do 100% of the parenting but never brings up her own case" is "poor longsuffering mother who has to do 100% of the parenting but never brings up her own case." No, that's another label that someone else has put out there. Everything in HER world is properly labeled. But what-the-heck, labels don't mean jack. Come on, Phil, get with the program here!! chuckle In my world, things are properly named, yes. I'm the mother. My ex is the father. Our salt is the salt. Those are the common names for the nouns (person/place/thing) mentioned. Are you able to tell the difference between a commonly accepted and used name for something, versus a denigrating label hurled by someone else? The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You did know this, right? What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? |
#1342
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial parent" are not names but derogatory terms? I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a compliment, but as a derogatory term. No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way. For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly become unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him as NCP. Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do anything. HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he IS forced to become uninvolved. See the connection? Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition? I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work. Phil #3 |
#1343
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial parent" are not names but derogatory terms? I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a compliment, but as a derogatory term. No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way. Gee, I don't recall seeing a post where someone said that a label forced behavior to match that label. I must say that I do skim posts occasionally, though. Maybe you could direct me to the post wehere someone actually said that being given a certain label forces you to do certain things. This was the point to which I was responding - and please note, that I stated "I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act in a particular way" - at no time did I state that a certain label "forces" a person to do anything. You DO understand the difference between causation, and force? Anyway, here's the post to which I was responding * * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * * "Chris" wrote in message news:MlvVg.863$UJ2.52@fed1read07... "You DO realize that being labeled as "NCP" carries with it the burden of having a money judgement against you to your ex, the loss of your children, and the very real threat of imprisonment, among other wonderful things. You cool with that?" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Now, the label of NCP is not the CAUSE of a money judgement, nor does it FORCE a money judgement. There are other actions involved in the creation of a money judgement. The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the loss of children, nor does it FORCE the loss of children. There are other actions involved in the loss of children. The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the threat of imprisonment, nor does it FORCE the threat of imprisonment. There are other actions involved in the threat of imprisonment. Now Teach, I've dumbed this down about as much as I possibly can for you - You've dumbed it down to a straw man. The above is like saying pulling the trigger is not what killed someone, rather the bullet ripping through their skull did. It's reasoning like yours that allow criminals to be set free and forces the innocent to pay the penalty for someone ELSE'S wrong doing! I've pretty much kept it to words of one and two syllables for you. If you still can't understand, then I suggest you go ask someone else. For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly become unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him as NCP. What moron would state that one's self will is taken away by being labeled? Please direct me to that post! Already did - though please note, I wasn't the person doing the namecalling and referring to him as a moron. |
#1344
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message [snip] Nice try - but you continue to try to ignore the patently obvious Chris has quoted me correctly. Perhaps he has - the 'he' to which I was referring was Rags, the second option was from HIS list, also quoted correctly (by me). Still, how does your "50/50 CP/NCP partnership" differ from the current 100/0 that is so common today? It wasn't *my* 50/50 partnership - I was quoting someone else. I am one of those who is in a 100/0 situation due to the other parent deciding to drop out of it. Are you suggesting that even if the CP doesn't want to play the game according to a "partnership" there would be steps to make them reasonable or for that matter, when the NCP doesn't want to be reasonable, how is this forced? I made no such suggestion. I didn't say you did, I simply asked you a question, which you failed to answer, as usual. Hmmm, you asked if I was suggesting, and I stated that I made no such suggestion. That's a no. The problem is that on either side, all it takes is for one to not play the game and that is exactly what is happening today. Yup - that's how I ended up with 100/0 The incentives for not playing are the problem. Remove those and most of the problems self-correct, IMO. So perhaps you can explain what sort of incentive there is for the parent that simply drops out? I've never understood how any parent can walk away from their child, though I see it happening. There is no incentive to finance the mechanism of one's demise. I've personally known of a single case where a parent just walked away and that was the mother who found a new lover and he didn't want her kids. At least she didn't strap them in a car and drive it into a lake. The main problem is that law has little place in ordering families to a situation where either parent is suddenly "less than" because they are divorced. "Family" law needs to be scrapped and replaced with common sense and understanding. Even though parents may not be able to remain married, divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children. So what do you do in the case of a parent who chooses to divorce their children? Depends on age, for one thing. Since mothers can abandon their infants (depending on the specific state as to how soon after birth), fathers should have similar ability during the same period. For children beyond the maximum age, the parents should both support their children as close to equally as possible with the same penalties for either for failing to do so. Now, do you care to address the original point or are you uninterested because it's not about YOUR case? I haven't mentioned *my* case at all - which 'original point' would you like addressed? Quite a few have been raised in this thread. How about if we work on finding a solution for the vast majority of the cases--where such a thing didn't happen. The deal with the relatively rare cases where it does happen. So Phil's case of a parent just walking away shouldn't be discussed? I'm trying real hard to address points other posters raise, like "divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children", and apparently you want to deter that discussion? You want to discuss one type of case by changing the subject? How does that work exactly? You brought up a mother walking away from her kids, and posted that parents aren't divorcing their children. I asked a question about your posting. Precisely HOW did I change the subject? The point was the majority of cases where the parents divorce but each wants to remain in the children's lives; so naturally, you start talking about a second situation (yours, as always). I didn't mention *my* situation at all - That's right, because your situation has nothing to do with a parent who chooses to divorce his children. I asked a question, based on your statement "divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children." Phil #3 |
#1345
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Chris" wrote in message news:UquWg.1050$UJ2.415@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message [snip] Nice try - but you continue to try to ignore the patently obvious Chris has quoted me correctly. Perhaps he has - the 'he' to which I was referring was Rags, the second option was from HIS list, also quoted correctly (by me). Still, how does your "50/50 CP/NCP partnership" differ from the current 100/0 that is so common today? It wasn't *my* 50/50 partnership - I was quoting someone else. I am one of those who is in a 100/0 situation due to the other parent deciding to drop out of it. Are you suggesting that even if the CP doesn't want to play the game according to a "partnership" there would be steps to make them reasonable or for that matter, when the NCP doesn't want to be reasonable, how is this forced? I made no such suggestion. I didn't say you did, I simply asked you a question, which you failed to answer, as usual. Hmmm, you asked if I was suggesting, and I stated that I made no such suggestion. That's a no. The problem is that on either side, all it takes is for one to not play the game and that is exactly what is happening today. Yup - that's how I ended up with 100/0 The incentives for not playing are the problem. Remove those and most of the problems self-correct, IMO. So perhaps you can explain what sort of incentive there is for the parent that simply drops out? I've never understood how any parent can walk away from their child, though I see it happening. There is no incentive to finance the mechanism of one's demise. I've personally known of a single case where a parent just walked away and that was the mother who found a new lover and he didn't want her kids. At least she didn't strap them in a car and drive it into a lake. The main problem is that law has little place in ordering families to a situation where either parent is suddenly "less than" because they are divorced. "Family" law needs to be scrapped and replaced with common sense and understanding. Even though parents may not be able to remain married, divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children. So what do you do in the case of a parent who chooses to divorce their children? Depends on age, for one thing. Since mothers can abandon their infants (depending on the specific state as to how soon after birth), fathers should have similar ability during the same period. For children beyond the maximum age, the parents should both support their children as close to equally as possible with the same penalties for either for failing to do so. Now, do you care to address the original point or are you uninterested because it's not about YOUR case? I haven't mentioned *my* case at all - which 'original point' would you like addressed? Quite a few have been raised in this thread. How about if we work on finding a solution for the vast majority of the cases--where such a thing didn't happen. The deal with the relatively rare cases where it does happen. So Phil's case of a parent just walking away shouldn't be discussed? I'm trying real hard to address points other posters raise, like "divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children", and apparently you want to deter that discussion? You want to discuss one type of case by changing the subject? How does that work exactly? You brought up a mother walking away from her kids, and posted that parents aren't divorcing their children. I asked a question about your posting. Precisely HOW did I change the subject? The point was the majority of cases where the parents divorce but each wants to remain in the children's lives; so naturally, you start talking about a second situation (yours, as always). I didn't mention *my* situation at all - That's right, because your situation has nothing to do with a parent who chooses to divorce his children. I will contoinue to not mention *my* situation. I asked a question, based on your statement "divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children." Phil #3 |
#1346
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Chris" wrote in message news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial parent" are not names but derogatory terms? I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a compliment, but as a derogatory term. No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way. For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly become unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him as NCP. Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do anything. Right HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he IS forced to become uninvolved. See the connection? I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved - and there are too many divorvced, NCP fathers who manage to stay involved who would also refute your statement. Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition? I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work. Phil #3 |
#1347
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Chris" wrote in message news:d5uWg.1042$UJ2.48@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. But they're only labels; they don't mean "jack". Thus, how can you be certain of what's inside? Don't you understand the difference between the name for something, as opposed to an imposed label? You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Phil #3 Phil #3 |
#1348
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial parent" are not names but derogatory terms? I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a compliment, but as a derogatory term. No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way. For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly become unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him as NCP. Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do anything. Right HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he IS forced to become uninvolved. See the connection? I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved - and there are too many divorvced, NCP fathers who manage to stay involved who would also refute your statement. When a father is removed by force from being with his children on a daily basis, I'd call that forced uninvolvement. Phil #3 Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition? I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work. Phil #3 |
#1349
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:d5uWg.1042$UJ2.48@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message link.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Phil" wrote in message ink.net... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07... "Moon Shyne" wrote in message ... "Chris" wrote in message news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07... "teachrmama" wrote in message ... "Rags" wrote in message ups.com... Chris, Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your comments through all of the history. You begin your response with the claim that money somehow has to change hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that anyone should have is whether or not a child is being neglected (starved, beaten, etc.) Short of abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is absolutely NOBODY'S business how one raises their child! I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or exposed to unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents. The problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of wedlock emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death knell of rational decision making. In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio family is best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant second, and an involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent household third, with the options degrading in desirability from that point on. You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might that fall on your list? Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the "mutually respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only applies if the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful monogamous relationship. As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and one in the NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50 mutual custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels. Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of 50/50. For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse the CP/NCP roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is. I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0. Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles! That would require the other parent being willing to take the other 50%. I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one who ceded sole custody to me :-) I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU willing to be the NCP? As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50. Labels don't mean jack - they're just words. Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug addict"? They don't mean anything, they're just words? How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little something about the individual? They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child support is a thief. Does that make it so? Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object. Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble. Ummm nope. Things are called by their name. But they're only labels; they don't mean "jack". Thus, how can you be certain of what's inside? Don't you understand the difference between the name for something, as opposed to an imposed label? Again, how can you be certain of what's inside? You know, salt is called 'salt'. What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone else might impose? Phil #3 Phil #3 |
#1350
|
|||
|
|||
Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression
"teachrmama" wrote in message
... "Tracy" wrote in message ... No need in apologizing. Asking questions and asking for clarification is much better then assuming. I don't look at a question for clarification as an assumption. You also don't tell people that you wish they had died in childbirth like Pandora does. No I never would. I happen to welcome people's views that are different than mine. There is always something to gain by listening to & reading other views. Tracy |
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 |