Virginia Letters to the Editor: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or not

Copyright 2005 Landmark Communications, Inc.
The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.)

September 1, 2005 Thursday The Virginian-Pilot Edition

SECTION: LOCAL, Pg. B10

LENGTH: 631 words

HEADLINE: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or
not

BODY:
These letters are in response to "State's 'deadbeat' ad persecutes
low-income parents" (op-ed, Aug. 30) by Jeffrey Leving, a family law
attorney, and Glenn Sacks, a columnist who writes on fathers' and men's
issues.

Let them work 2 or 3 jobs

I have never been so angry reading the newspaper as I was regarding the
op-ed commentary about the deadbeat parents ad.

The pot of gold does exist; it's called, get more than one job if you
have to. Getting tough on parents who fail to pay child support does
have a pot of gold at the end. It's called making sure the kids get
what they need, like food, clothing, a roof over their heads.

Obviously the lawyer and columnist have no idea of what a struggling
single parent is all about. I have worked two and three jobs at a time
to try to keep food on the table for my three kids. They darn sure
weren't $12- or $15-per-hour jobs either.

The absent parent should do whatever it takes, if it means working at
McDonald's at night and construction during the day. Hunt them down and
make them pay. After all, the kids didn't ask to pay for being their
child.

Commentaries like this raise our state taxes due to single parents
needing more assistance. And if they don't qualify, more kids are sent
to bed hungry.

Hazel Burns

Virginia Beach

Get the courts involved

I have some working knowledge of the child-support-collection system in
Virginia. I agree with the authors of the opinion piece that a large
percentage of delinquent child-support evaders are of low-income
status. However, that does not relieve them of the responsibility of
supporting their children.

If the person, male or female, cannot pay because of his or her
situation, then the courts and the Division of Child Support
Enforcement should be willing to reduce the amount of monthly support
ordered. The courts and the child-support-collection agencies of this
country should also be willing to work together and collect from
out-of-state evaders.

The problem of inability to pay child support must become a socially
unacceptable condition. When the community begins to show its
disapproval of those who routinely create life with no thought to how
the child will be supported, then maybe collection can be ensured. The
problem isn't just teen pregnancies; it's adults who behave as if the
baby can take care of itself.

The authors of the piece seem to forget that many absent parents don't
pay anything for years and years. If one looks at some of the amounts
owed by people appearing in the "Have you seen these parents?" ads, it
appears that no attempt has been made to pay or keep up with
obligations.

Personally, if I could receive all my back support from the absent
legal (as in married) father of my two college-age daughters, it would
cover both of their college costs.

Carol Evans

Norfolk

Misplaced sympathy

As a divorced mother of two boys, I take great offense to the article
that takes the state to task for publishing pictures shaming all those
pitiful noncustodial parents who don't make enough to pay support.

I've worked two and three jobs at a time to take care of my children.
Why can't their father be expected to do the same? I worked these jobs
while raising two children on my own, and he has no other
responsibilities to keep him from working.

Why can't he be held jointly responsible for the children he created?
Why isn't his picture in the paper, too?

Elizabeth Phillips

Virginia Beach

Cry me a river ...

How sad that these poor low-income dads are being persecuted for not
supporting their children! Boo-hoo. It breaks my heart. How could
anyone uphold a low-life, good-for-nothing "sperm donor" (they don't
merit the title dad or father) who won't even support their own
children?

Deborah Hall

Chesapeake

LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2005

wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

The attitude is simply amazing in these women. To bad they haven't gotten
off the couch and away from Oprah in 20 years to learn the truth of the
matter. Witch hunters, the lot of them.

Dusty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

The attitude is simply amazing in these women. To bad they haven't gotten
off the couch and away from Oprah in 20 years to learn the truth of the
matter. Witch hunters, the lot of them.

I love the part about people who have children with no regard to
whether they can support them or not. If you apply this kind of logic
to all parents and not just NCP's a lot of welfare mothers should be
thrown in jail as well. The arrogance of these people amazes me. Notice
that they are all women. TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only
persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control
other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their
actions?

"TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only
persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control
other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their
actions? "

What about condoms? (97% effective YIKES) Or getting snipped (99.9%
reliable)

Perhaps we could agree to advocate for better male birth control? It
stinks that we have so few options especially as birth control pills
DO cause side effects occassionally charming things like blood clots in
the lungs.

With one well known alleged exception it TAKES 2 to make a baby.

Last time I knew, with some limited exceptions caused by pure
stupidity, pregnancy can only occur if the male ejaculates (into the
vagina) and therefore has an orgasm, whereas the woman need feel
nothing at all to get pregnant

LLL wrote:
"TAKE A BIRTH CONTROL PILL. Women are the only
persons in our society who have a reliable method of birth control
other than abstinence, maybe they should be responsible for their
actions? "

What about condoms? (97% effective YIKES) Or getting snipped (99.9%
reliable)

When used correctly of course. 86% when not used correctly. Your
statistic is correct if used correctly. I did use the correct use
statistic for birth control. 95% with normal usage patterns is the rate
for birth control. The 4.9% disparity, as opposed to the 11% disparity
would lead one to believe that birth control is actually easier to use
correctly. Norplant and Depo-Provera are 99.91% effective and 99.7%
effective when used. (Apparently incorrect usage is not a problem here,
because of the nature of use, i.e. you do or you don;t.) Withdrawal is
the only method other than condoms and male sterlization (a medical
procedure that is unattractive because it has to be reversed if you
want to have children) are the only method available to men. That is 3
methods total. There are 4 different hormonal methods for women, 2
types of IUD's, 4 types of barrier devices (granted many an
ineffective), and sterilization. For men there are 0 types of hormonal
(the most attractive) methods, IUD's obviously do not apply, 1 type of
barrier method (condoms), and withdrawal. Withdrawal is not really an
effective method. The natural family planning methods are also
ineffective and require a stable, ongoing relationship. Norplant is
more effective than anything else.

http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html


Perhaps we could agree to advocate for better male birth control? It
stinks that we have so few options especially as birth control pills
DO cause side effects occassionally charming things like blood clots in
the lungs.

Of course we could agree of that. The industry seems to think men would
not take it. There would be a viable market in both the single guy (I
don't wanna be a daddy now) market, and the married guy (tired of my
wife's headaches) market.

With one well known alleged exception it TAKES 2 to make a baby.

Yes it does, but it only takes one to prevent making a baby. Women have
more, and better, options. There are much more than the one alleged
exception that you refer to, sperm banks allow unilateral decisions by
the woman.

Last time I knew, with some limited exceptions caused by pure
stupidity, pregnancy can only occur if the male ejaculates (into the
vagina) and therefore has an orgasm, whereas the woman need feel
nothing at all to get pregnant

I am sure she would feel something, like maybe the penis inside of her.
Actually, a man need not ejaculate to execrete sperm, although
ejaculation obviously increases the chance of pregnancy. I don't think
anyone, male or female, cares if they "got off" when they find out
about an unwanted pregnancy.

There's one thing that jumps out of these letters supporting the
relentless hounding of "parents" who owe what is laughingly called child
support. They are all women. So-called child support is money that men are
supposed to pay women. It's one of the clearest examples there is of the
sexist nature of this system.

P.S. Is Virginia Beach a woman too? She sounds like one.



wrote in message
oups.com...
Copyright 2005 Landmark Communications, Inc.
The Virginian-Pilot(Norfolk, Va.)

September 1, 2005 Thursday The Virginian-Pilot Edition

SECTION: LOCAL, Pg. B10

LENGTH: 631 words

HEADLINE: No pity party here for those deadbeat parents, low income or
not

BODY:
These letters are in response to "State's 'deadbeat' ad persecutes
low-income parents" (op-ed, Aug. 30) by Jeffrey Leving, a family law
attorney, and Glenn Sacks, a columnist who writes on fathers' and men's
issues.

Let them work 2 or 3 jobs

I have never been so angry reading the newspaper as I was regarding the
op-ed commentary about the deadbeat parents ad.

The pot of gold does exist; it's called, get more than one job if you
have to. Getting tough on parents who fail to pay child support does
have a pot of gold at the end. It's called making sure the kids get
what they need, like food, clothing, a roof over their heads.

Obviously the lawyer and columnist have no idea of what a struggling
single parent is all about. I have worked two and three jobs at a time
to try to keep food on the table for my three kids. They darn sure
weren't $12- or $15-per-hour jobs either.

The absent parent should do whatever it takes, if it means working at
McDonald's at night and construction during the day. Hunt them down and
make them pay. After all, the kids didn't ask to pay for being their
child.

Commentaries like this raise our state taxes due to single parents
needing more assistance. And if they don't qualify, more kids are sent
to bed hungry.

Hazel Burns

Virginia Beach

Get the courts involved

I have some working knowledge of the child-support-collection system in
Virginia. I agree with the authors of the opinion piece that a large
percentage of delinquent child-support evaders are of low-income
status. However, that does not relieve them of the responsibility of
supporting their children.

If the person, male or female, cannot pay because of his or her
situation, then the courts and the Division of Child Support
Enforcement should be willing to reduce the amount of monthly support
ordered. The courts and the child-support-collection agencies of this
country should also be willing to work together and collect from
out-of-state evaders.

The problem of inability to pay child support must become a socially
unacceptable condition. When the community begins to show its
disapproval of those who routinely create life with no thought to how
the child will be supported, then maybe collection can be ensured. The
problem isn't just teen pregnancies; it's adults who behave as if the
baby can take care of itself.

The authors of the piece seem to forget that many absent parents don't
pay anything for years and years. If one looks at some of the amounts
owed by people appearing in the "Have you seen these parents?" ads, it
appears that no attempt has been made to pay or keep up with
obligations.

Personally, if I could receive all my back support from the absent
legal (as in married) father of my two college-age daughters, it would
cover both of their college costs.

Carol Evans

Norfolk

Misplaced sympathy

As a divorced mother of two boys, I take great offense to the article
that takes the state to task for publishing pictures shaming all those
pitiful noncustodial parents who don't make enough to pay support.

I've worked two and three jobs at a time to take care of my children.
Why can't their father be expected to do the same? I worked these jobs
while raising two children on my own, and he has no other
responsibilities to keep him from working.

Why can't he be held jointly responsible for the children he created?
Why isn't his picture in the paper, too?

Elizabeth Phillips

Virginia Beach

Cry me a river ...

How sad that these poor low-income dads are being persecuted for not
supporting their children! Boo-hoo. It breaks my heart. How could
anyone uphold a low-life, good-for-nothing "sperm donor" (they don't
merit the title dad or father) who won't even support their own
children?

Deborah Hall

Chesapeake

LOAD-DATE: September 3, 2005