WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
news

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

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?

Firstly I'm not being naive. Fairness can be designed into the laws and
guidelines. It's not how it is now, but it CAN be done. I hear you telling
me that this won't work, that nothing works. I hear everyone here whining
about support and aside from a very few people, it's the only thing you
seem
to know how to do!

I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone gets
each month.


The fact is that whining, and talking destructively about the system and
those who seem to soak it is a huge waste of time. What can you do to fix
it? What would fix it?

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95% of
the problems right there.


Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why? How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95%
of
the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement too.

It's scary.

Papa

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of 95%
of
the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement too.

It's scary.

Papa

"gini52" wrote in message
...
That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to do
with marriage.

Papa

"gini52" wrote in message
...
That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to do
with marriage.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"gini52" wrote in message
...
That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that
really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I
don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to
do
with marriage.
==
That's because you are denying its legal existence (which is based entirely
on financial grounds).
Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we can
tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is the
entire dilemma. We all
know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change can
be enacted. For now, we
must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens *a
lot* to NCPs in family court.
One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy of
should/is,
most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you don't
like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you jailed
for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's finances
are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.
==
==

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"gini52" wrote in message
...
That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that
really
mean?
===
It depends what state you are in. In PA, common law marriages are
recognized
as legally
binding and are subject to legal divorce, spousal and child support, if
applicable. Common
law marriage is not an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card.

I'm not talking about the legal aspects of marriage/common-law, etc. I
don't
see how CS, the financial or parental responsibilities, have anything to
do
with marriage.
==
That's because you are denying its legal existence (which is based entirely
on financial grounds).
Perhaps you actually mean (correct me if I'm wrong) is that " ....CS, the
financial or parental responsibilities," *should* not have anything to do
with marriage. From there we cannot tell you you are wrong--but, what we can
tell you is that, in family court, we must deal with what *is.* That is the
entire dilemma. We all
know what *should* be but are forced to deal with what *is* until change can
be enacted. For now, we
must have all our bases covered to avoid being blindsided--which happens *a
lot* to NCPs in family court.
One thing that gets bantied around this group frequently is the dichotomy of
should/is,
most often argued by NCPs, newly initiated to the plight of fathers, who
cannot believe the system behaves the way it does. We don't like it at
all--but, our court appearances must deal with what *is.* Many of us have
been in the situation of telling the court (paraphrased), "You cannot do
that. It is illegal" only to have the court respond, "Watch me. If you don't
like it, appeal and, bear in mind that if you appeal, I will have you jailed
for contempt." This happens because the court knows that the NCP's finances
are depleted and he does not have the ability to appeal.
==
==

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
of
the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their children
are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I think
that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about as
the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many into
seeming deadbeats.

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.

It's scary.

No kidding!

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
I did not say that nothing works. I absolutely DO say that giving the
NCP's
entire paycheck to bureaucrats is no sloution at all, and that fairness
can
in no way be built into the system you describe because it is run by
people
whose value judgements are the determining factor in how much everyone
gets
each month.

It does seem hopeless, that we can't build a system that works.

I think that the only thing that would fix the system is to put the
responsibility of child support exactly where it belongs: on the
paernts.
I think the "system" should be reserved for those who have demonstrated
that
they will not behave responsibly on their own. That would get rid of
95%
of
the problems right there.

The same parents that earned the name "deadbeat dads"? There's a
sufficient
number of fathers (or NCP) that don't want to step up to the
responsibility
which is why the government has had to step in. Maybe too far in, but they
have a role to play because of the deadbeats.

No. The deadbeats are the only ones who should be ground by the
system--both the CP and NCP deadbeats. I think you are mistaken about the
number of deadbeats there are--most people want to make sure their children
are cared for. Today's system might make it look as if that is not true,
but, given the opportunity, and a voice in how much is fair to pay, I think
that we would see that the problem that has been so wrongly bandied about as
the reason we need the system would disappear. It's the unfairness of
thesystem--with its imputed incomes, lack of accountability for CPs,
complete disregard fo subsequent children, etc--that has turned so many into
seeming deadbeats.

Do you feel it's unfair that she's able to collect Child Support? Why?
How
would you regulate the amount?

Who? The child's mother? or the child? The child deserves support for
the
essentials: food, shelter, clothing, etc. Any other amount given should
be
a gift from father to daughter. Unfortunately, there is no way to keep
mom
from using her daughter's money to buy a better brand of booze.

You're right. The child deserves the support, the "loser boozer mom" is a
problem if she can't handle money and is self-serving and misdirected. The
bulk of the judges display a seemingly criminal lack of good judgement
too.

It's scary.

No kidding!

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

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.


That's the BS to marriage. I'm living "Common-Law" WTF does that really
mean? Unless I have kids, nothing, it shouldn't mean anything. Marriage,
whether it's roots are finacial or religious is a waste of time, like a
request for approval. I don't think I'll walk that road again. I don't see
a
need.

I don't see how someone's commitment or responsibility to pay CS related
to
marriage.

Now. For those people who are supporting someone else's kids... Why?

Those mothers who are asking for support for 5 kids by 5 fathers, great!
Why
are those fathers causing all this grief for the fathers that are
contributing.

We need the stigma of "deadbeat dad" to fade away. How do we do this? How
do
we stop the persecution of those who are good fathers hitting bad times?

By storming the feminazi groups and the government buildings and making it
clear, clean up your acts or else, revolution.


Papa