WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be getting
1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.

"Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
just the child it is intended for?"

It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
it.

Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.

Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

Papa

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's 2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful. They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.

Papa

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's 2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful. They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And
she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be
getting
1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use
it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will
make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.

"Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
just the child it is intended for?"

It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
it.

Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.

Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

As far as my husband's daughter goes, yes, she deserves support. And
she
absolutely should, by the law, be receiving the benefit of EVERY penny
sent
as child support, and no other person in that household should be
getting
1
penny's worth of benefit from it. Do you think it is ok for mom to use
it
for the entire household, and not just the child it is intended for?
(Including her own rather copious amounts of booze, I might add) But it
will never be that way, because child support never has been and never
will
be for the benefit of the child--it is for the benefit of the CP. No
matter
how you set up the system. I pretty much think that your system will
make
it far easier for money to be transferred from the NCP to the CP with no
protections built in for the NCP.

"Do you think it is ok for mom to use it for the entire household, and not
just the child it is intended for?"

It's not a matter of OK. Reality is you don't and won't have control over
it.

Look. I hate these situations. I think it's wrong for people to become
parents when they don't understand or accept the consequences too.

Can you suggest any ways to help the situation? What could you see as a
realistic aspect of a law that could help the CS process?

I am merely asking you how you think your solution would do anything to help
our situation. My husband's entire paycheck would be fair game to the
social workers who would like to see this child's family functioning above
the poverty level. And you seem to think that, in your model, things would
be divided "fairly." I can't understand how you could be so naive as to
believe that "fairness" could possibly enter into a situation where the
control of the money was given to bureaucrats and social workers. Why do
you think they would suddenly become more caring, concerned, and human if
they were given a bigger chunk of change to do with as they pleased?

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.

Marriage is controlled by the state just like divorce. The state issues
marriage licenses in exchange for a fee. Religious leaders are allowed
under state laws to perform marriage ceremonies but they have no legal
standing other than as a formality in accrediting the state's role.

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing
==
Actually it isn't a religious "thing." It is and always has been
a financial matter. The religious sanction came later to this financial
institution. That is why many believe that two people
in love can have a "marriage" ie commitment, caring, cherishing, monogamy
without that piece of paper.
Indeed, marriage is--a financial piece of paper. When two people marry, the
state views the relationship as financial--the man is (still) supposed to
provide financially for the wife and children. The state is concerned about
that support, the tax implications, assets, divorce settlements, death
benefits, inheritance, insurance, etc.
(More Below)
==
and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.
==
Without government involvement, there is no reason for "marriage" as there
are no financial
implications for the marriage institution other than those few that are
voluntarily entered into by the parties and those mandated by individual
religious beliefs, which are neither enforced nor recognized by the
government.
(More Below)
==

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's
2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with
no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful.
They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and
the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.
==
It takes time to change something that has existed as part of the social
structure for so long.
The courts/legislatures will not change until society forces them to change.
Society will not
force a change until society sees the need for change. What fathers can and
are doing is
making more noise about the injustices in family courts. It is taking
society a while just to get past the idea
that all fathers are concerned about changing is child support. Society is
just now learning that some
men are required to support kids that aren't theirs and that the absence of
fathers has a detrimental effect on children.
==
==


Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
Do you have a better idea? Does anyone?

You asked for "comments" and you got comments.

Now you insist "comments" be limited to "better ideas."

The better ideas a

Privatize marriage, establish pre-marital contracts defining marriage
and
divorce issues, get the government out of family law, eliminate
incentives
for out of wedlock births, eliminate incentives to breakup marriages by
mandating joint custody and shared parenting, treat all children
regardless
of birth order equally, etc.

Hi Bob,

Thank-you...

I don't think marriage and CS really belong in the same aspect of law to
start with. Marriage is a religious thing
==
Actually it isn't a religious "thing." It is and always has been
a financial matter. The religious sanction came later to this financial
institution. That is why many believe that two people
in love can have a "marriage" ie commitment, caring, cherishing, monogamy
without that piece of paper.
Indeed, marriage is--a financial piece of paper. When two people marry, the
state views the relationship as financial--the man is (still) supposed to
provide financially for the wife and children. The state is concerned about
that support, the tax implications, assets, divorce settlements, death
benefits, inheritance, insurance, etc.
(More Below)
==
and really shouldn't be a
governemt or legal institution anyway.
==
Without government involvement, there is no reason for "marriage" as there
are no financial
implications for the marriage institution other than those few that are
voluntarily entered into by the parties and those mandated by individual
religious beliefs, which are neither enforced nor recognized by the
government.
(More Below)
==

CS should be a cut and dry responsibility based upon parenthood, DNA if
necessary. Joint custody and joint parenting should be the focus of the
court orders, the default being equal time for both parents, whether it's
2
weeks/2 weeks, or summers and weekends. The default should be equal with
no
CS exchanged.

In otherwords I agree with you. These are better ideas.

What's the use in just bitching about the system that won't change. We,
those suffering in it, need to find solutions, options we can pass to the
lawmakers. Sites like fathers.ca and the like are not entirely helpful.
They
are a voice, but we need to ensure the "deadbeat dad" wrap is erased and
the
idea of fair and justified court orders becomes reality.
==
It takes time to change something that has existed as part of the social
structure for so long.
The courts/legislatures will not change until society forces them to change.
Society will not
force a change until society sees the need for change. What fathers can and
are doing is
making more noise about the injustices in family courts. It is taking
society a while just to get past the idea
that all fathers are concerned about changing is child support. Society is
just now learning that some
men are required to support kids that aren't theirs and that the absence of
fathers has a detrimental effect on children.
==
==


Papa

Do not get married and do not have children, the feminist socialist idiots
would go nuts, and start paying men to have kids, like I heard in some other
countries, the men folks are not getting married there or having kids, and
their governments is worried, no children, no future taxes, no income for
the government....

You Men folks should be storming the feminist groups hideouts and government
buildings and hanging the idiots to the nearest tree......


"chillin'" wrote in message
m...
I, too, always thought it was for the raising of a child to make them
better and productive citizens of society. I guess I was wrong in
thinking this as more and more cp's are asking for ungodly amounts of
raising a child that the government is siding with them in order to
keep the children and cp's off of the welfare rolls. CS should NEVER
be used to provide such things as the cp's income should provide, or
the ncp's when living with them. These things include basic housing,
food, and other things such as clothing that the cp's income should
provide in attempting to be independent of the ncp. Each parent
should raise that child(ren) on his/her income when that child is
living with them, and if a cp wants to be truly independent, then
he/she should never ask for extra money in raising that child. If you
cannot afford the child then give them up to good homes somewhere
either with the other parent, or with a good foster home that can
afford them. If you are not mature enough to get along with a spouse,
then do not get involved in a relationship to begin with. Plain and
simply put, GROW UP first! Then you just might have the maturity it
takes to get involved in a relationship and stick it out "for better
or for worse", "in sickness and in health", "til death do us part",
assuming any of that is in your marriage vows any more.

Just like all the times in the past forty years, liberal democrats, or
whatever they call themselves now in order to hide their agenda, have
taken away the basic rights of hard working, honest parents forcing
one or the other to provide for two homes while demeaning the family
unit to nothing. I cannot wait til next year to see Hitlary Clinton
running for the office of the President of the United States and her
agenda to place all men in chains to be nothing more than slaves and
under the control of the female population, and to demeanor men once
and for all in the history of the world. She is pure evil and devious
enough to do such a feat. From her actions and words out of her own
mouth, she is the spawn of the devil himself waiting for the
acceptance of a people, and today America is ripe for Satan's
pickings. Hitlary will make ALL men pay for the hurt and pain she
alone has endured throughout her life, and the lives of countless
women alleged to have been hurt by other men. CS will more than
double, and the prisons will be filled far, far beyond capacity as
more will see prison terms for not adhering to their former spouses
demands for money and whims of living. The taxes will have to be
raised to an ungodly amount in order to house the prison populations
drastic increase, the court systems lawsuits that will be unequalled
today, and our world becomes nothing but a slave prison population
because someone disagreed with another in the marriage foundation that
has gone wrong. Of course, for forty years now, it has been a liberal
democrats goal to always raise taxes in order to support the bigger
socialistic government slowly being created for the population of
America, where the government has control of and payes for everything.
(Remember this on election day).

What is CS for? Obviously it is to make one parent poor, while the
other lives in the lap of luxury and his children are no better off
than before the marriage ended. One parent stuggles with the cost of
supporting two households, while the other lives off of the blood and
sweat with not a care in the world, nor a responsibility to anyone,
not even the children. CS has become, by the federal and state
governments own hands, a way for women to regain something for years
of abuse in their eyes, and not for the sake of the children as many
would have you to believe.

Just remember, CS is NOT for the children, but for the living of the
cp and her wildest dreams in life to live for herself while the
children starve, go unclothed, and beg for anything that they might
need and want. It is a way for the cp to become "dependently
independent", with absolutely NO accountability to anyone, not even
the government or CS agencies like the DAD's out there running amuck
trying to support themselves, their children, and the whims of their
ex spouses lounging around to make a life miserable. Not to mention
being branded and labeled(need I mention how?)