Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but
physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious
problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had
serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she
agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter.

However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to
a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of
getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more
than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the
guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my
attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I
could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also
told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I
would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in
the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority.

Things are alot different there than here...Here to modify a court ordered
amount
for child support due to changed circumstances (conditions do apply but with
your
case you would have fell into this) all you have to do is pay $15 for a
modification
hearing and go in before a hearing officer and go over the change
circumstances and
if no agreement made one will be ordered by going over income and expenses.
(there
is a long long list of what they count and what they dont for both
parties...about 6 pages
worth of paperwork for each party alike, and gathering the proof of income
and expenses)

On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this
ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that
70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their
husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering
the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates
that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the
traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead,
they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart."

'we just grew apart' is not right in my eyes....

There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as
this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in
the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to
break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually
guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child
support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50,
regardless of which spouse created the wealth.

We got a 50/50 split--he got 2 cars and the house--I got the car with the
payment and all of the debt (credit cards etc)---he paid for the divorce, I
couldnt afford an attorney--Lessons learned here...

You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your
marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my
observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband.

I got the blame in this case....noone cared why I left-just that I left....

One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part,
men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating
the impression that they were innocent parties.
Agreed

So there's a one-sided
propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying
tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to
give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people
the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the
"see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument.

He didnt 'make' me leave. I left because he broke our vows. Yes, I left
because of something he did, but noone cares about why I left just that I
did.




ME wrote:

"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

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's
partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.
----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this
guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it
off
with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the
child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak,
scream,
louder than words.

So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with
nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying
it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt
----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay
it.

Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can
imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.
-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's
more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.

You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he
would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months,
then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another
few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so
young?
-------------------

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

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

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way,
Dad
owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a
week)
-----------------
snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years
old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.
-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money
she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he
have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the
poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.

When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why
he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD

To make this story as short as possible
because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by
men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly
both to get something done about violating court orders, getting
child
support etc.
----------------
And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get
anything
done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations.
-------------------
My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in
using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also
ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing
the
child, providing clothes or moral support)
Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and
dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc.
--------------
She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the
choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT.
All
men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose.

Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support
payments.
Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around
and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?
NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in
form of money

What? Women can't work and earn money?
Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---

Women can't take children on
outings?
of course they can....
Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?

You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both
parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have
to spend time with children is what you see, to say.
Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.

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

-------------------
Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth
control,
RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life
-------------------------
No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have.
The
right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a
women to
get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own
choices.
A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent.

Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to
do
so.
BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a
perfect
world
it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant,
but we
don't live in a perfect world do we?

So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he
signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he
just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay?

--------------------
but then make a law that Dad also
has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad.
---------------
What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts
of
cs
to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for
you?
Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the
country
who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can
easily
garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they
should
bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay
their
cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional
licenses
of
any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those
things.

Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to
raise
a
child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of
child
support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I
know a girl
who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week.
$200
is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15
a
week? come on....

$15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month
because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their
salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs
paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS.
Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts!

---------------------
This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in
the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.

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

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's
partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.
----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this
guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it
off
with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the
child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak,
scream,
louder than words.

So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with
nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying
it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt
----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay
it.

Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can
imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.
-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's
more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.

You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he
would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months,
then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another
few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so
young?
-------------------

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

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

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way,
Dad
owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a
week)
-----------------
snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years
old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.
-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money
she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he
have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the
poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.

When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why
he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD

To make this story as short as possible
because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by
men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly
both to get something done about violating court orders, getting
child
support etc.
----------------
And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get
anything
done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations.
-------------------
My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in
using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also
ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing
the
child, providing clothes or moral support)
Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and
dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc.
--------------
She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the
choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT.
All
men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose.

Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support
payments.
Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around
and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?
NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in
form of money

What? Women can't work and earn money?
Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---

Women can't take children on
outings?
of course they can....
Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?

You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both
parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have
to spend time with children is what you see, to say.
Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.

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

-------------------
Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth
control,
RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life
-------------------------
No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have.
The
right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a
women to
get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own
choices.
A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent.

Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to
do
so.
BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a
perfect
world
it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant,
but we
don't live in a perfect world do we?

So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he
signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he
just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay?

--------------------
but then make a law that Dad also
has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad.
---------------
What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts
of
cs
to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for
you?
Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the
country
who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can
easily
garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they
should
bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay
their
cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional
licenses
of
any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those
things.

Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to
raise
a
child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of
child
support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I
know a girl
who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week.
$200
is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15
a
week? come on....

$15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month
because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their
salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs
paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS.
Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts!

---------------------
This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in
the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
hlink.net...
[snip]

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.

Yes, those agencies and businesses that don't count C$ as income to the CP
allow the CP to choose whether or not to count C$ as income but, it just
irritates me to no end when anyone continues the lie that child support is
'for the children' or makes the mistake of thinking that C$ improves
children's lives. It is *possible* but not guaranteed by any stretch of the
imagination and usually, children, after divorce, are far worse off. Whether
or not C$ benefits the children depends entirely upon the decisions of the
mother. Anyone who has concern for the "best interests" of the children
should be looking at what we're doing to them in the first place that puts
them directly into harm's way instead of blaming those fathers who had, and
have, no choices in the matter.
In total, C$ is not supposed to be income for the CP is it *supposed* to be
support of the children.


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.

Only if the C$ for each income group is the same as well, intact, married,
divorced or never married
C$ should be based on *need*, not availability.
Children of richer parents do not *need* more nor are they more deserving.


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?

No, not at all but the CP should suffer under the exact same prohibitions
and benefits as the NCP, including accountability of monies spent. It's the
act of seeing one as always right and the other as always wrong that is the
basic problem. Neither is ever always true but it is always wrong to assume
the NCP won't support his children properly just as it is always wrong to
assume the CP will spend received C$ on the children only and not take a cut
off the top.

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.

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of
the finances of their ex. A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.
Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out. When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing
rules on which he has no input or control.
Phil #3

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
hlink.net...
[snip]

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.

Yes, those agencies and businesses that don't count C$ as income to the CP
allow the CP to choose whether or not to count C$ as income but, it just
irritates me to no end when anyone continues the lie that child support is
'for the children' or makes the mistake of thinking that C$ improves
children's lives. It is *possible* but not guaranteed by any stretch of the
imagination and usually, children, after divorce, are far worse off. Whether
or not C$ benefits the children depends entirely upon the decisions of the
mother. Anyone who has concern for the "best interests" of the children
should be looking at what we're doing to them in the first place that puts
them directly into harm's way instead of blaming those fathers who had, and
have, no choices in the matter.
In total, C$ is not supposed to be income for the CP is it *supposed* to be
support of the children.


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.

Only if the C$ for each income group is the same as well, intact, married,
divorced or never married
C$ should be based on *need*, not availability.
Children of richer parents do not *need* more nor are they more deserving.


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?

No, not at all but the CP should suffer under the exact same prohibitions
and benefits as the NCP, including accountability of monies spent. It's the
act of seeing one as always right and the other as always wrong that is the
basic problem. Neither is ever always true but it is always wrong to assume
the NCP won't support his children properly just as it is always wrong to
assume the CP will spend received C$ on the children only and not take a cut
off the top.

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.

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of
the finances of their ex. A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.
Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out. When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing
rules on which he has no input or control.
Phil #3

"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.)


Thanks, I was thinking of you the whole time I wrote it.

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.

Yeah, I'm on my 15th year now... 17 months, 1 day, 12 hours to go, then my
ex can learn to live off only her own income (or more likely, continue to
mooch off her parents At least, I'll be able to stop paying her to make
'choices' for 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.

Exactly. And that is just the beginning of making the father pay for
decisions made by the mother against his wishes. We've always fought over
whether our son needed clothes or she needed jewelry; whether he needed new
glasses (or a dental checkup) or she needed a 4th vacation that year. It
seems his needs fall below her wants; always have, always will.
Phil #3

"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.)


Thanks, I was thinking of you the whole time I wrote it.

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.

Yeah, I'm on my 15th year now... 17 months, 1 day, 12 hours to go, then my
ex can learn to live off only her own income (or more likely, continue to
mooch off her parents At least, I'll be able to stop paying her to make
'choices' for 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.

Exactly. And that is just the beginning of making the father pay for
decisions made by the mother against his wishes. We've always fought over
whether our son needed clothes or she needed jewelry; whether he needed new
glasses (or a dental checkup) or she needed a 4th vacation that year. It
seems his needs fall below her wants; always have, always will.
Phil #3

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
hlink.net...
[snip]

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.

Yes, those agencies and businesses that don't count C$ as income to the CP
allow the CP to choose whether or not to count C$ as income but, it just
irritates me to no end when anyone continues the lie that child support is
'for the children' or makes the mistake of thinking that C$ improves
children's lives. It is *possible* but not guaranteed by any stretch of
the
imagination and usually, children, after divorce, are far worse off.

I agree after divorce the children are worse off than before. And yes it
isnt guaranteed the CS is bettering the childrens lives in most cases. The
only true way to guarantee that is moderation.

Whether
or not C$ benefits the children depends entirely upon the decisions of the
mother. Anyone who has concern for the "best interests" of the children
should be looking at what we're doing to them in the first place that puts
them directly into harm's way instead of blaming those fathers who had,
and
have, no choices in the matter.
In total, C$ is not supposed to be income for the CP is it *supposed* to
be
support of the children.

I agree


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.

Only if the C$ for each income group is the same as well, intact, married,
divorced or never married
C$ should be based on *need*, not availability.
Children of richer parents do not *need* more nor are they more deserving.

I agree---and I think you said it all.


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?

No, not at all but the CP should suffer under the exact same prohibitions
and benefits as the NCP, including accountability of monies spent.

Agreed

It's the
act of seeing one as always right and the other as always wrong that is
the
basic problem. Neither is ever always true but it is always wrong to
assume
the NCP won't support his children properly just as it is always wrong to
assume the CP will spend received C$ on the children only and not take a
cut
off the top.

Right

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.

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion
of
the finances of their ex.

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

A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has
become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.

That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.

Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to
give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.

Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of
the child's life on his/her own.

When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to
changing
rules on which he has no input or control.

Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.



Phil #3

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
hlink.net...
[snip]

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.

Yes, those agencies and businesses that don't count C$ as income to the CP
allow the CP to choose whether or not to count C$ as income but, it just
irritates me to no end when anyone continues the lie that child support is
'for the children' or makes the mistake of thinking that C$ improves
children's lives. It is *possible* but not guaranteed by any stretch of
the
imagination and usually, children, after divorce, are far worse off.

I agree after divorce the children are worse off than before. And yes it
isnt guaranteed the CS is bettering the childrens lives in most cases. The
only true way to guarantee that is moderation.

Whether
or not C$ benefits the children depends entirely upon the decisions of the
mother. Anyone who has concern for the "best interests" of the children
should be looking at what we're doing to them in the first place that puts
them directly into harm's way instead of blaming those fathers who had,
and
have, no choices in the matter.
In total, C$ is not supposed to be income for the CP is it *supposed* to
be
support of the children.

I agree


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.

Only if the C$ for each income group is the same as well, intact, married,
divorced or never married
C$ should be based on *need*, not availability.
Children of richer parents do not *need* more nor are they more deserving.

I agree---and I think you said it all.


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?

No, not at all but the CP should suffer under the exact same prohibitions
and benefits as the NCP, including accountability of monies spent.

Agreed

It's the
act of seeing one as always right and the other as always wrong that is
the
basic problem. Neither is ever always true but it is always wrong to
assume
the NCP won't support his children properly just as it is always wrong to
assume the CP will spend received C$ on the children only and not take a
cut
off the top.

Right

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.

I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion
of
the finances of their ex.

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

A far better way would be to continue to let
parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they
see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has
become
obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their
children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$.
All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their
maritial status.
IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with
that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents.

That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties
live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the
following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the
child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of
larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did
that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school
district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up
in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the
child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged.

Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to
give
money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to
cooperation and the statistics bear this out.

Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of
the child's life on his/her own.

When a father is granted
visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no
visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to
changing
rules on which he has no input or control.

Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have
input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child
by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time
period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All
couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the
courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by
looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the
right to talk about it and make the final decision.



Phil #3

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

"ME" wrote in message
...

snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's
partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.
----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this
guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it
off
with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the
child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak,
scream,
louder than words.

So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with
nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying
it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt
----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay
it.

Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can
imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.
-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's
more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.

You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he
would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months,
then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another
few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so
young?
-------------------

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

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

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way,
Dad
owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a
week)
-----------------
snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years
old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.
-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money
she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he
have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the
poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.

When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why
he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD

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

snip for length

Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around
and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.

All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?
NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said
before that forget about child support payments --- parental
responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in
form of money

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


What? Women can't work and earn money?
Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off
without helping to support his/her children---

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


Women can't take children on
outings?
of course they can....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


snip for length

This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in
the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.

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