WHAT IS CHILD SUPPORT FOR

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:W346b.272286$Oz4.72030@rwcrnsc54...

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.

disagree. The child deserves to be removed from the mother's house, and
placed some where safe. It isn't the judges, but the system overall.

The judge has the power to remove the child from the home. Some judges
re-act poorly to what seems like mud-slinging and this is usually where
Children's Aid is a player. They're a whole other discussion because
families can be persecuted and wrongly accused too, placing CA in a
difficult situation.

It isn't scary to me. For a real change it will require a change in how
we
view it, and attitude.

Perception is everything. Biases and prejudices are difficult to fight. The
question is how?

Do people on a soapbox screaming all sorts of words of blame resolve things,
no. The best solutions come from discussion, like this and presenting ideas
in an orderly manner to the lawmakers. Many people resent the lawmakers but
we need them to make the changes.

Papa

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

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.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

Papa

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

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.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead, unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

Papa

"gini52" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Marriage SHOULD not be a factor or an aspect
of CS.

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.

I have a firm understnading of what IS and the system IS disfunctional to
put it nicely.

You are dead right about the courts, and too many CP (mothers) take that to
heart. A short time ago my ex was claiming, though not in court - just
yelling at me over the phone, that I was "denying access" to her children.
In reality it was her laziness and lack of responsibility that was the real
denial. She merely had to come by and pick them up as she had agreed earlier
in the day. She threatened court if they were not DELIVERED that night. She
lives 7 minutes drive away and, well, she has the new car. I don't have one
at all.

Was I being stubborn? yes. Absolutely. The intent was to help her understand
I will not be threatened or pushed around. It worked. Now. We don't speak at
all, she can't help but get upset and I don't get upset.

Papa

"gini52" wrote in message
...

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.

Yes, that is what I'm saying. Marriage SHOULD not be a factor or an aspect
of CS.

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.

I have a firm understnading of what IS and the system IS disfunctional to
put it nicely.

You are dead right about the courts, and too many CP (mothers) take that to
heart. A short time ago my ex was claiming, though not in court - just
yelling at me over the phone, that I was "denying access" to her children.
In reality it was her laziness and lack of responsibility that was the real
denial. She merely had to come by and pick them up as she had agreed earlier
in the day. She threatened court if they were not DELIVERED that night. She
lives 7 minutes drive away and, well, she has the new car. I don't have one
at all.

Was I being stubborn? yes. Absolutely. The intent was to help her understand
I will not be threatened or pushed around. It worked. Now. We don't speak at
all, she can't help but get upset and I don't get upset.

Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

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.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead,
unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money
being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of
parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want
to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their
income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have
set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

Once again you have bought into the propaganda. THe percentage of 'true'
deadbeats hasn't changed with guvmint involvement. It is simple an excuse
to grow the guvmint


How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.



Papa

"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...

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.

You have bought into the propaganda hook line and sinker.

No. I haven't. I'm a direct witness to women who need to use the system to
ensure they have support. I'm also aware of a few women who do not use the
system for fear the father will run. Neither scenario is wrong, they are
choices. I'm a persecuted NCP. The persecution is over for the moment but
the threat is ever-present and taking it's toll.

The fact is, the majority of "deadbeat" dads are deadbroke, dead,
unaware
that they are a parent, or underage. If you look at the "new" money
being
collected by the draconian system, compared to what is being spent to
collect that "new" money......it is a losing proposition........not to
mention a gross violation of rights to thousand upon thousands of
parents.

Many are. I said there are a sufficient number of fathers who don't want
to
take responsibility. This is not wrong or off-base. They are the reason
those fathers who are broke, jusifiably broke (not just hiding their
income
or wasting it on booze/drugs), are persecuted. They true deadbeats have
set
the expectation that NCPs are not trustworthy.

Once again you have bought into the propaganda. THe percentage of 'true'
deadbeats hasn't changed with guvmint involvement. It is simple an excuse
to grow the guvmint


How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.



Papa

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Perhaps someone should start a private industry that persues the deadbeats,
and NGO. They can ask politely that a delinquent NCP pay for the child he
created. Give the agency any teeth and it's as good as government.

Papa

"Paul Fritz" wrote in message
...
How do we separate the true deadbeats from the perceived deatbeats? How
could you know the difference between the two?

It doesn't matter.......don't you get that yet.

Why doesn't it matter? How do you suggest those people that need support get
it? Do you feel that the CP just will the NCP to pay them?

Perhaps someone should start a private industry that persues the deadbeats,
and NGO. They can ask politely that a delinquent NCP pay for the child he
created. Give the agency any teeth and it's as good as government.

Papa

If the system only had the power to go after those who totally rejected
responsibility for their children, it would not be so bad. If the system
did not have the power to tell the NCP how much he must pay based on the
system's flawed analysis of flawed data, it would not be so bad. But that
isn't how it happens to be.

How do you tell which is the deadbeat and which is not? Give them a chance
to prove it! Put the parents in the position of working out the child
support/custody issues for themselves. Let them decide
reasonable/unreasonable together without the opportunity for one to hide
behind the judges robes and receive the protection of a flawed system. Only
if one parent flakes out completely should the system be able to step in!


"PapaPolarbear" wrote in message
. ..

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...
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.

How does an organisation, an agency, a person know a father is not a
deadbeat dad? There is a presumption of guilt. The basic right of criminal
law, innocent until proven guilty, is disregarded entirely by the
organisations and the government (laws).

Persecution based on conjecture is the name of the game. While I'm going
the
argument of specific amounts or guidelines at this particular moment, the
challenge for many falls into a few bullets:
- CS is not automatically adaptive based on income. Proof of income is
required, requires lawyer ($$)
- Guideline amounts seem extreme and are difficult to adjust ($$)
- CP can withold/threaten access and NCP requires courts ($$) to resolve.
- CP move is uncontrolled and may change circumstances, access may cost
more $ or become impossible.
- CP can shirk various responsibilities.

These are all huge points to tackle, and I'm sure there are more, but the
reality is the system does not trust the father. The "deadbeat dad" label
is
readily available and placed you in the dungeons of society. Most fathers
do
want to be part of their child's life. Some don't but still face the
responsibility of CS. Some are driven away by the remnants of the
relationship, others by the threat of support. Some go too far and become
criminals, driven insane by the persecution, killing CPs, children.

Those of us who believe in being part of the childs life are easy targets
because we haven't run. We're right there to take the punishment of the
system. Those who run face it if they're caught, so what. They're part of
the reason we pay (emotionally, psychologically). Those that go off the
deep-end... What can I say, they just broke, but they do offer the
impression that fathers are dangerous.

See... we actually do agree on this... we all agree. The system is
wrong...
in all it's forms across the globe it's wrong. I'd love to hear of a
working
system. Our society has a big part in the reason is doesn't work, as much
as
why it exists at all.

How do we convince our goverments that they must redefine the lines...
CP/NCP/PNP/NPP (Parent Not Present - Paying, Non-Paying Parent)?

Papa