Name change because parent not visiting child

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more
money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make.
The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of
tax
free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is
she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know
is,
I
have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational expenses, to
clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to medical and dental
expenses has risen steadily between their infancy and their current
adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Here's some advice on how other mothers handle your dilemma:

Make the child get a job.

When CS stops, start charging the child rent.

Stop buying food they like so they eat out more.

Force the child to do more around the home - Turn them into unpaid
domestic
workers.

Tell them to buy their own clothes.

Ask the child to buy stuff for you and then never repay them.

As you can see, the free money subsidy doesn't "magically stop when
they
hit
their 18th birthday." The trick is to turn previous expenses into an
income
source. Just talk to some other former CP mothers. They can give you
lots
of hints on how to turn your children into money generating assets.

If you want to follow that "advice", go for it. Personally, I think your
advice sucks, and have no intention of treating ANYONE that way, much
less
my children.

Hummmm! Maybe my "advice" to solve mother's post-18 CS money problems is
why both my children came to live with me. Have you ever stopped to think
that fathers treat their children in a way that shows children a more
supportive parenting style? Why do you think so many children of divorce
refer to their mothers as being greedy?

I would have no idea - my children's father treats them in a way that shows
them that he doesn't give a rat's ass about them - as for being greedy, my
children know that they are the primary beneficiaries of the household
income. And no, they're not greedy either - they tend to want to share what
they have with others who don't have.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the
more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their
single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of
tax free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own costs
is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know
is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational
expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to
medical and dental expenses has risen steadily between their infancy
and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY
YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've treated
your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a
*choice* to provide more than that. You are only *legally required* to
provide the minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change the
legal requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly
none that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor
spelled out in my divorce.

On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who was
calculating how much support to provide to their children based on some
"legal minimum requirement"

I don't disagree with you on that, Moon. But you have no right to make
that same decision for others.

I don't make decisions for anyone, except myself and on behalf of my
children.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have,
the more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support
their single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years of
tax free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own
costs is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I know
is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to educational
expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental insurance to
medical and dental expenses has risen steadily between their infancy
and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY
YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've
treated your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a
*choice* to provide more than that. You are only *legally required* to
provide the minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change the
legal requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly
none that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor
spelled out in my divorce.

On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who was
calculating how much support to provide to their children based on some
"legal minimum requirement"

I don't disagree with you on that, Moon. But you have no right to make
that same decision for others.

I don't make decisions for anyone, except myself and on behalf of my
children.

So then you agree that the CS system should mandate that only the basics
should be covered by required CS, and that anything above the levfel of
basic support should be voluntary. That's good.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Dale" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have,
the more money
they get. The more men they have children with, the more they
make. The
poorest women have the largest safety net system to support
their single
motherhood.


It's turning out that way, a kid is a free ticket to 18 years
of tax free income!

And well more than 18 years of bills.

Such as?
What bills, other than minimal support of children and her own
costs is she forced to pay?

Please define this "minimal support of children" - cause all I
know is, I have 2 teenagers, and everything from food to
educational expenses, to clothing expenses to health and dental
insurance to medical and dental expenses has risen steadily
between their infancy and their current adolescence.

And it doesn't magically stop when they hit their 18th birthday.

Phil #3


Minimal support is that required by law, which if you've ever seen
situations that barely meet the situation, you'd agree are not
acceptable to many, if not most, parents.
It is the very basic food, shelter, clothing, etc.
You are only legally required to minimally support your children,
period.
That you choose to support them better is a choice.
If the support doesn't end with their attaining adulthood, it is BY
YOUR CHOICE.
Now what, beside minimal support is the CP *required* to supply?

Pretty much what *any* parent feels compelled to provide to their
children - a reasonable upbringing.

Yoiu and BOb seem to be on the same page - if that's how you've
treated your children, I feel sorry for them.

OK, you don't agree that minimal support is enough. But it is a
*choice* to provide more than that. You are only *legally required*
to provide the minimum. Your choice to provide more does not change
the legal requirement in any way.

Reality being what it is, there IS no "legal requirement" - certainly
none that I've seen spelled out in the divorce laws of my state, nor
spelled out in my divorce.

Perhaps you think that laws only come from divorce decrees?


On a more personal level, I'd be pretty worried about ANY parent who
was calculating how much support to provide to their children based on
some "legal minimum requirement"


That's what I'm trying to get you to see. The law states that CPs must
provide the basic legal minimum requirement. That's it!
Phil #3

"Phil" wrote in

... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization, once
admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to remove from the
minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family traditions, national
patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often the staunchest defenders
of those democratic ideals, so it only makes sense to marginalize males by
any means possible. --
Phil #3

Yes, I feel very marginalized & processed too!

I wonder if they still expect me to keep paying if I'm told by the federal
governement that I'm not allowed to get a job?

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"Phil" wrote in

... Brock Chisolm, former head of the World Health Organization,
once admitted, “To achieve world government, it is necessary to
remove from the minds of men, their individualism, loyalty to family
traditions, national patriotism, and religious dogmas.” Men are often
the staunchest defenders of those democratic ideals, so it only makes
sense to marginalize males by any means possible. --
Phil #3

Yes, I feel very marginalized & processed too!

I wonder if they still expect me to keep paying if I'm told by the
federal governement that I'm not allowed to get a job?


Of course!
It appears the aim is to emasculate the entire country and turn it into
one big feminist commune.
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

nsnippage


That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children
does
not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

Well, if that's true, then NCP fathers wanting the best for their
children
doesn't necessarily translate into them doing so, either.

So what do you suggest, to make sure that the best for the children is
actually done?

And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please
explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without
spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one
thin dime.

TANF. Free daycare.

That provides a free home? Or only to those people who are below poverty
level?



Food - please explain how you provide food for children without
spending
one
thin dime.

Food Stamps. WIC. Food Banks. School breakfast and lunch programs.
(Some
fo these programs allow mothers and below school aged children to
accompany
their school aged children to eat breakfast at school.)

As long as you're within the poverty level guidelines. The rest of us
have
to pay for it.
So far, you can only raise a kid for free if you already don't have
anything.

Cept for that pesky housing thing..... TANF and free day care don't
provide
a free home.


Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.

State Health Plan. Refuge Medical Programs.

Again, only if you fall in the poverty guidelines.


Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.

Hand-me-downs. Church and other support group programs.

Is that guaranteed?

And are all of these freebies going to be available for just anyone? Or
golly gosh gee whiz, only for those who already don't have anything and
fall
within the poverty guidelines.

Chris has asserted that ANYONE can raise a child without spending one thin
dime. Of course, I don't see that he's actually answered yet.

Since ANYONE can become poor, then ANYONE can do the above.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

Phil wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in
message
oups.com...

teachrmama wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in
message

oups.com...

P Fritz wrote:
Bob Whiteside wrote:

"P Fritz" wrote in message
...

teachrmama wrote:

"ghostwriter" wrote
in
message

legroups.com...


DB wrote:


"ghostwriter"
wrote


nsnippage


That CP mothers wanting the best (spending CP$) for their children does
not
necessarily translate into them doing so. Thus, your claim is a non
sequitur.

Well, if that's true, then NCP fathers wanting the best for their children
doesn't necessarily translate into them doing so, either.

So what do you suggest, to make sure that the best for the children is
actually done?

Nothing.


And while you're at it, let's put your theory to the test. Please explain
how you can provide each of these needs for the children without spending
one thin dime, as you have claimed so many times:

Housing - explain how you provide housing for children without spending
one
thin dime.

Barter or provide your own labor for such provisions.

Food - please explain how you provide food for children without spending
one
thin dime.
Medical care - please explain how you provide medical care for children
without spending one thin dime.
Clothing - please explain how you provide clothing for children without
spending one thin dime.
Electricity and heating - please explain how you provide these utilities
for
children without spending one thin dime.
Educational materials - please explain how you provide education materials
(things like paper, pens or pencils, etc) for children without spending
one
thin dime.

Thank you - I'm sure an awful lot of cash-strapped parents will appreciate
you explaining how this can be done, so we can all start saving some
money -
after all, the same concepts should work as well for adults as children,
no?

Go for it, Chris - you made the claim, perhaps it's time you backed it up.

Well, since money existed before children did, I guess I just can't back up
my claim.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"ghostwriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

snip for length



more snippage



Set things up so the CP is forced to show what she is actually
spending
the $$$ on.

Why? To use *your own* argument, married parents aren't required to
do
so.
Why are you singling out CP's and requiring them to do so?

Perhaps for the same reason that your system singles out unmarried
fathers
concerning "child support".

It isn't *my* system.

It's the system you support which makes it the same as your system.


Lay off these guys and reciprocally the mothers
will be left alone.

Ah - banish the CS systems that are in place, and you stop bashing CP
moms?

Do you consider statements of fact "bashing"?


Simple. But then again, why do so. Mothers are already
exempt from such accountability.

No we're not. We're required to provide the same financial accounting to
the CS system that the fathers are.

Straw man once again. Mothers are indeed exempt from showing an accounting
of how such "child support" proceeds are spent. In other words, they DON'T
have to do it.




I think patterns of spending reeveal a lot. If dad is living in
poverty, and kid is flitting from one expensive sport to another,
with
all
the attending costs associated with such, it would be safe to say
that
CS
is not set at a fair level.

It also at least shows that the money is being spent on the child - and
weren't you advocating letting parent(s) decide what is important
to/for
the
child?

Of course, if you have 1 parent who refuses to take part in the
decision
making process, then it does sort of fall on the other parent to have
to
make the decisions.

And no, not all parents are "forced out" of the decision making
process.

Virtually every NCP parent (meaning father) is. And that is what this
forum
is about.

No it isn't. This forum is about child support.
It's not a forum about the decision making process.

My error. I should have said "discussion".
However, do you believe it is unreasonable to discuss this issue in this
forum?



Shoot, there's any number of *married* parents who simply let the other
parent decide. My best hypothesis says that approximately the same
proportions on married parents default out of the decision making
process
as
divorced parents do.

"Greedy" was a word I took form the post I was
responding to. The point is--let's leave those who can handle it on
their
own alone, and trun attention to those who are abousing the system on
BOTH
sides of the issue.

Works for me - I just see you propose some things that really won't
work
in
the real world. Not all divorced parents are just champing at the bit
to
take on 50 or more % of the care of their children, either in time or
in
money. It's just not reality. So your starting point that all
parents,
100% of them, should start with joint custody/care/expense obligations
just
doesn't seem to address this reality.

So which parent do you suggest be denied custody from the start, and
why?

Neither.

Then you too are not "addressing reality".

I've never suggested that a parent be denied custody, except in
cases of documented and proven abuse.

and more snippage


Moon, I am (and always have been) talking specifically about the
abusers
of the system.

Then it would be nice if you were careful about pointing that out when
you
slam CP's as you are when you promote symspathy for NCP's.

The vast majority of both CPs and NCPs do not need the system,
but are fair, honest adults. As for there being no lapreventing
married
parents from providing only a bare bones existence--so what?

Well, let's not treat married parents differently from divorced
parents -
isn't that one of the things you have posted in the past? That all
parents
need to be treated the same?

Indeed! So let's start by eliminating the "child support" industry.

How does denying children support from their parents address this?

You tell me.




There is also
no law requiring them to provide any existence above tha--so why
should
divorced fathers be held to that standard? That is not the point,
and
you
know it.

Then why are you holding CP-receiving mothers to some standard above
that?
That was my point.

(see above)

Perhaps you should.

Ok, quote that which I should see; then tell me WHY I should see it.


and more snippage



THAT'S RIGHT!! Then why base an entire system on the possibility
that
such a thing is happening? "We are curing poverty for millions of
children by forcing those scummy NCPs to pay." NONSENSE!!!!!!

Thre only ones I see talking about children in poverty are the ones who
are
having to pay CS for some prior child, and how their own children are
now
forced into poverty.

Certainly, I have been promoting the concept that raising children
costs
money

(shadup Chris, no one is buying your idea that you can raise kids
without
a
single dime - the hospital bill to deliver the child, alone, blows your
theory right out the window).

Then it follows that money existed before children. You buy that?

There have always been monetary systems in place - check your history.

I did, and much to my surprise, I learned that money existed before people
did. Gee, how could I have been so naive!




Since it costs money to raise children,

No it doesn't.

Yes, Chris, it does.

Tell that to the parents who are raising their children without the use of
money.

You are all alone out there in this insistance that it
doesn't.

I would wager that the millions of parents who are doing it would also
insist that it doesn't. But then again.......... just a WILD guess.



someone needs to pay that money.
That someone needs to be the child's legal mother and father

(and no, we're not talking about the parents who have released their
child
for adoption, and we're not talking about someone's
great-great-great-great
grandparents, without whom the current child would never exist)

That's right. We're talking about the child's father without whom the
current child would never exist. Why?

Why what?

Why the father but not any other of the many folks without whom the current
child would never exist.




Child support is not tied to parenting time/visitation/whatever in hell
you
want to call it.

You might want to inform your "family court" people about this because
apparently they are not aware of it.

It's not *my* court, Chris.

I was making reference to the people.



Some people get so hung up on the label for something,
they miss out that it was the thing they really wanted.

My bet says that most men, when they were married, didn't question
their
wives on how each and every penny was spent. They just didn't. I find
it
almost humorous that those very same men who didn't give a damn how the
money was spent while married now want to micromanage their ex's
financials,
completely overlooking that her checkbook is no longer his business,
post
divorce.

Nice twist. The issue is the taking of their money by force, NOT
voluntarily
relinquishing it.

How odd - I thought the issue was originally about a "name change because
parent not visiting child"

You must be quite fond of Chubby Checker.




Get over it.

My ex was all up in arms the year that I bought a new SUV.

He insisted that I had used the CS money for it, and was starving our
children (who were naked and had to walk 5 miles to school, barefoot,
in
the
snow, uphill both ways apparently).

He insisted this, he tried to make a federal case out of it, he even
tried
to sue me in civil court.

Pity for him, my prior car had been totalled, and the new one was far
less
expensive - and I didn't use a single penny of CS to pay for it.

So much of this is simply a control game - you can't control me,
therefore
you try to control my checkbook.

Correction: You are attempting to extort my cash, so I will attempt to
defend it.

I am? How odd, I didn't realize I was doing *anything* to you.

Just as odd as your claim against the previous poster.




Why not take all that angry energy and do something constructive with
it,
like working on strengthening a relationship with ALL your kids?

Of course! For the children............

A decent relationship? Don't you think that's just a wee bit more
important
than ranting and raving for years about the same things, over and over?

That depends on the individual. However, such relationship aint' gonna
happen so long as your government people prohibit it. Thus, whether one
thinks it is or not is irrelevant.



The ones
who live with you, the ones who don't live with you.... at least then,
you'd
have tangible results that make you feel as though you've made a
positive
change in your corner of the world.

What a waste to sit on any forum, ranting and raving, and saying the
same
things over and over, year after year, with no change after years and
years
of it.

Then why do you do so?

I don't.

And the sun does not rise in the east...............




Teach - any idea how long you've been ranting and raving about the use
of
the word irrelevant?

[/soapbox]

"Dale" wrote in message
et...

"P.Fritz" wrote in

He makes the classic socialist arguement that one select groups "right"
trump annother groups / individual's rights. Which of course, is
completely wrong.

I guess it's OK with him and others of his Ilk that I should be deported
because I can't come up with $55,000. I have to lose my job, my home and
friends & family because this greedy bitch can't see past the $$$ that the
Friends of the court have promised her. She was receiving $800/mth until
immigration revoked my authorization to work in this country. Nobody said
these people were smart!

Reminds me of the woman who revoked her ex's driver's license because he did
not pay her "child support" due to his unemployment. He's a truck driver.