C$ paid, yet Judge orders prison time for not paying child support..??

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...


Should mothers who refuse to allow court ordered
visitation,
or move
away
without court approval to prevent court ordered
visitation,
be put in
jail?

If there are court orders in place, and the mother
ignores
them
for 10
years
the way the man in the original story did, then yes.

So are you saying a father ignoring a court order for
"an
extended period of
time" but comes into compliance desrves to be jailed?

He still wasn't in compliance. If someone commits
murder,
and
then leads a law-abiding life, he's still committed a
crime,
and
deserves to be jailed for it.

But a mother has to
violate a court order for a minimum of 10 years before
she
should be jailed?

That isn't what I said.

I said "ignores them for 10 years the way the man in
the
original
story did"

A man who doesn't pay for 10 (or any other number of)
years
can
be
forced to pay the amount he has neglected to pay (plus a
whole
lot
more) Even jail doesn't stop that from happening. How
can
the
mother who refuses visitation *ever* repay the dad for
making
him
miss out on his children's childhoods? As far as I'm
concerned,
she should spend the years after the kids leave home
repaying
him
every penny of CS he paid--as punishment for depriving
him
of
something that can never be returned!

Sounds like you think that time with the children can be
replaced
with money - and I'm thinking that wasn't really the way
you
intended your statements to come out.

I believe I said very clearly that time with the children
can
*never* be replaced. (Although the family court system
seems
to
think that a father can be replaced with his money) Her
paying
back
every penny of child support would be pure, unadulterated
PUNISHMENT! And far less than she deserves for depriving
father
of
children and children of father.

By insisting that the lack of time with the child be "paid
back",
you
seem to be saying that the time can be replaced with money.

It can't be paid back!

Then why demand that the mother pay the father back money?

NOTHING can ever replace those years.

Then why is your solution for the mother to 'pay back" the
child
support?

Ever! Getting
the money will NOT replace those years in any way.

Then why is returning the money your solution?

Because SHE treated him like a walking wallet for all of those
years.
Let HER now be treated as a walking wallet.

And how does that repair the relationship between the child and
the
father?

It doesn't. Why should that be vaunted as the goal? It is
paying
compesation for a wrong committed by the woman.

The wrong is the damage to the relationship between father and
child -
why
isn't that the goal of the compensation?



She didn't see him as a father to
her children, but as a source of money. Let her now be a
dehumanized
source of nothing more nor less than money.

Will it repair the relationship between the child and the
father?

That will be for the father and child to work out. If that is
how
he
chooses to use the money she pays him, it is certainly fine with
me.

Ah.... and if he spends it on his new bimbo, that's ok too?
Wasn't
the
whole point, as you stated.... "repay the dad for making him miss
out
on
his
children's childhoods" ?






But it will punish the
wicked woman who deprived children of father and father of
children.

So...... for the parent who doesn't spend ANY time with
their
child....... should they be paying more?


Why not send her to jail for contempt of the court order
then,
or
demand that she pay for family counselling between the father
and
child, to try to rebuild the relationship?

My argument is that your solution is for the mother to pay
the
father
money, to make up for something that you insist that money
can't
buy.
It makes no sense.

Nothing can bring back a murder victim, either. So nothing
should
be
done since the guy is dead anyway?

If a crime has been committed, then the criminal has to be
punished.

Not paying child support in a certain amount is a felony. Why
shouldn't
blocking visitation bethe same thing?

Perhaps they should be - though currently, they're not.



Some things just can't be made up fro, but
punishment can be exacted. Let her pay for her crime by
losing
her
hard-earned money to the very person she so badly injured.

Will it repair the relationship between the child and the
father?

Nope, no guarantee that it will. But it will in a very small
way
help
compesate thefather for the loss of his children's childhoods.

Oh? How? His relationship with the child will not have been
repaired
at
all.





Actually, I was only talking about mothers who purposely
keep
father
and children apart.

Then make the punishment fit the crime - send child to live
with
the
father, make the mother pay for the therapy and counselling
to
rebuild
the relationship....... but to demand that if the mother
doesn't
let
the father see the child requires the mother "paying back"
the
child
support, you've now made it a situation where the father is
paying
to
see the child, he doesn't get his visitation and should get
his
money
back.

I am sure people that want to protect dishonest and
manipulative
custodial moms would see it that way.

I suggested 2 ways (2 posts ago) that would be steps towards
repairing
the relationship between the child and the father. You chose
to
ignore
them, and now want to claim that I "want to protect dishonest
and
manipulative custodial moms"??

You do not want custodial moms to have to account for the monies
they
receive as child support,

Actually, I've posted more than once that I have no problems with
the
recipient of CS having to provide an accounting.

but you want fathers being compesated in a small
way for the loss of their children's childhoods to only spend
the
money
the way you think it should be spent? Geesh!

I've posted that the remedy to damaging the relationship between
father
and
child should be the repair of that relationship. Apparently, you
have
a
problem with that.



I see it more ad an eye for an eye. Or, in
this case, a dollar for a dollar.

How about making the punishment something that will at least
repair
the
relationship between the father and the child? Wouldn't that
be
better
for both of the injured parties?

Why? Why shouldn't the father be able to spend HIS money any
way
he
wants
to? Why do you get to determine that it should be counseling or
nothing?

I was suggesting a remedy that addresses the damage - if the
damage
is
to
the father/child relationship, then the remedy should be the
repair
of
the
father/child relationship. Apparently, you disagree.

With all due respect, I believe you are missing the point. CS
money
is
really the means to the end of providing for the children and the
CS
process
allows the CP wide latitude in how to provide for the children.

If you find it troubling for a CP to pay compensation to an NCP for
disrupting visitation, perhaps you can suggest an alternative that
you
would
find acceptable.

I already did

"Then make the punishment fit the crime - send child to live with the
father, make the mother pay for the therapy and counselling to
rebuild
the
relationship"


How about requiring the CP to give the NCP the same wide latitude
in
how
the
parent/child relationship gets repaired in a similar fashion to the
discretion given to CP's?

My solution would be to require CP's to continue their family
pre-breakup
contribution just like a father is forced to continue his financial
contribution post-breakup. By forcing women to clean the father's
residence, do his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths,
do
his
ironing, provide sexual services, and continue all of her
pre-breakup
contributions, the woman would be preempted from interfering with
visitations.

Why doesn't it surprise me that your idea is that the woman is
nothing
more
than a slave?

If femwits like you consider a woman's pre-breakup contributions to
the
relationship to be slavery, no wonder the out-of wedlock birth rate
and
divorce rate is so high. Men don't have the option to let go of their
pre-breakup responsibilities. Why should any women be allowed to walk
away
from a relationship without maintaining her pre-breakup
responsibilities?
If women refuse to contribute anything to a relationship, it is no
wonder
men are so willing to not enter into anything more than a casual
sexual
hook-up with a woman.

Apparently, you see a father's financial contribution for the support of
his
children as equivalent to "forcing women to clean the father's
residence,
do
his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths, do his ironing,
provide
sexual services".

That's very sad.

Actually I see courts imputing incomes to men to drive up CS orders. To
have equality, the courts need to start imputing household
responsibilities
to women. If men can be told they aren't contributing enough, women
should
be equally told they aren't contributing enough.

Now you're talking "fair". You know that the kourts are not interested in
that.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Phil #3" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Apparently, you see a father's financial contribution for the support
of his children as equivalent to "forcing women to clean the father's
residence, do his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths, do
his ironing, provide sexual services".

That's very sad.

Sadder yet that no matter how many times it is explained, you cannot
understand the fact that 'paying child support' is not 'supporting
children'.
Bob's point that went completely over your head is that to be treated
in
a similar manner, if the father is forced to provide in a manner as if
the marriage had remained intact, so should the mother. Like a true
feminist you seem to feel that holding men to a higher standard is
advancement.

And I would have stated anything like that.......... where?


Phil #3


Did you mean something besides the tenor of all your anti-father posts
or
including them?

Hmmm, I'll take that to mean that you've totally missed my posts about the
mother who interferes with the father/child relationship, and how she
should
be compelled to make recompense by paying for counselling for father and
child to repair the relationship.

Just as long as it's not punitive. That's reserved strictly for fathers.



Phil #3

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

" krp" wrote in message
news:K3Cfg.11620$ho6.4092@trnddc07...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Apparently, you see a father's financial contribution for the support
of
his children as equivalent to "forcing women to clean the father's
residence, do his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths, do
his
ironing, provide sexual services".

That's very sad.

Sadder yet that no matter how many times it is explained, you cannot
understand the fact that 'paying child support' is not 'supporting
children'.
Bob's point that went completely over your head is that to be treated
in
a
similar manner, if the father is forced to provide in a manner as if
the
marriage had remained intact, so should the mother. Like a true
feminist
you seem to feel that holding men to a higher standard is advancement.


I don't think woman can understand that what they do after a divorce is
to
use the coercive power of the state to compel men to honor their end of
the
marriage contract (support alimony) even though the men MAY BE the
injured
party in the situation and innocent of any wrong doing in the marriage.
However even suggesting that courts could impose on women a continuation
of
their duties under the contract is so terrifying for them.


SIMPLE:

Men continue to be breadwinner regardless of fault and women continue to
be
supported regardless of fault.

so

Women should continue to do his wash, cook his meals, and provide sex on
occasion..................

I suspect that both women and men have the SAME feelings about being
required to continue their roles after a divorce.

Exactly. But the feelings get shuffled aside because the femwits try to
control men and what men think and feel. But when women have feelings
they
are in touch with their reality.

When men complain that forcing them to pay money is like slavery, femwits
respond it is not slavery because it is a man's responsibility.

When men suggest women should be required to continue their
responsibilities, femwits respond it is like slavery because that is not a
woman's responsibility.

The femwits argue both sides of the issue and have a situational position
based on whether it is men being forced to do court ordered things versus
a
woman being forced to do court ordered things.

This is better known as "tasting their OWN medicine".

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Gini" wrote in message
newswFfg.325$Mb6.90@trndny05...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
...........................................
The femwits argue both sides of the issue and have a situational
position
based on whether it is men being forced to do court ordered things
versus
a
woman being forced to do court ordered things.
==
But...the problem for men (and strong women) is that the state (and many
custodial parents) considers women weak and incapable.
Hence, they are victims simply by their existence. As inherent victims,
they
cannot be held responsible for
their failures and and must be protected through legislation.
==

Then there is the third rail of divorce. Strong women can play the victim
with their attorneys painting an image for the court that will get a
predictable response from the court.

That's the main reason why I consider family law attorneys to be bottom
feeders. My experience is they are dishonest, make things up, and lie to
the judges who disregard the facts presented by men to side with the
women.

And all the judicial commissions on bias in the courts never seem to
understand the victim game being played out right before their eyes that
provokes the court's biased response.

I can't agree that they are all idiots. They know EXACTLY what they are
doing! They are simply wicked to the core.

" krp" wrote in message
news:cMFfg.14805$U_2.12676@trnddc05...

"Gini" wrote in message
newswFfg.325$Mb6.90@trndny05...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote
...........................................
The femwits argue both sides of the issue and have a situational
position
based on whether it is men being forced to do court ordered things
versus
a
woman being forced to do court ordered things.
==
But...the problem for men (and strong women) is that the state (and many
custodial parents) considers women weak and incapable.
Hence, they are victims simply by their existence. As inherent victims,
they cannot be held responsible for
their failures and and must be protected through legislation.
==


If you want to look at the payments men have to make to women - it is a
form
of payment for past sexual services of a prostitute. SO much down and so
much a month. A time payment system. But most of us are overpaying for
it.

That is exactly right. Their prostitution is legal ONLY if they choose bear
the child of their "john". In fact, it is state sanctioned. The state
encourages and assists these whores in pursuing their fees!

:-)

"Phil #3" wrote in message
news

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Gini" wrote in

The whole system is an absolute farce!

The system is an insult to the founding fathers who wanted nothing but
freedom from government tyranny & control.
==
Well, sorta--They also wanted protection from the masses which is why
we
ended up with
a representative democracy. Your anecdotal references to communism
indicates a lack of
awareness of the many complex ways a government exercises
control over individuals and this is a very dangerous for fathers'
rights
advocates.

The founding fathers did not trust big government, that's why they put
their wishes in writing to help future generations from avoiding the
same
trap of power and control. Here we are just 200 years later, right back
to where the masses have no real voice and are helpless without any real
big money to assist them in the justice & political system. Freedom is
a
purchased commodity in America today! Sad really!

America was a great idea, now it's just a broken system that is run by
cheap politicians!

Not to worry, we can rebuild when the national debt bubble finally
bursts
in a few short years and everyone has to start from scratch.

I hope I am wrong but I fear the nation is positioning itself for a civil
war.
America aimed to be a classless society; today it is a nation without
class.
Phil #3

We have TWO enemies: the government people and foreign invaders!

"Gini" wrote in message news:sSrfg.186$DO5.16@trndny06...

"DB" wrote

"NewMan" wrote in

The whole system is an absolute farce!

The system is an insult to the founding fathers who wanted nothing but
freedom from government tyranny & control.
==
Well, sorta--They also wanted protection from the masses which is why we
ended up with
a representative democracy. Your anecdotal references to communism
indicates
a lack of
awareness of the many complex ways a government exercises
control over individuals and this is a very dangerous for fathers' rights
advocates. In our current
political climate, there are rarely extremes--but there is far more
influence from the extreme right than the extreme left, which
is virtually nonexistent today. In fact, there are two primary political
parties that are more alike than different and neither is a friend of
dads.

One of the SCARIEST positions that one can be in is a widower father. You
can rest assured that the government people will be watching him through a
microscope just waiting to nail him on the slightest infraction! This is the
result of a government filled with people that just absolutely HATE the
concept of children having fathers around. Sperm banks and lesbian parents
are the wave of the future.

==

"Phil #3" wrote in message
.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Phil #3" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Apparently, you see a father's financial contribution for the support
of his children as equivalent to "forcing women to clean the father's
residence, do his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths, do
his ironing, provide sexual services".

That's very sad.

Sadder yet that no matter how many times it is explained, you cannot
understand the fact that 'paying child support' is not 'supporting
children'.
Bob's point that went completely over your head is that to be treated
in a similar manner, if the father is forced to provide in a manner as
if the marriage had remained intact, so should the mother. Like a true
feminist you seem to feel that holding men to a higher standard is
advancement.

And I would have stated anything like that.......... where?


Phil #3


Did you mean something besides the tenor of all your anti-father posts
or including them?

Hmmm, I'll take that to mean that you've totally missed my posts about
the mother who interferes with the father/child relationship, and how she
should be compelled to make recompense by paying for counselling for
father and child to repair the relationship.



Take whatever you want, you'll still attempting to circumvent the meaning
of your many posts that, when boiled down, make it clear you have no
fondness for fathers.
Do you see a difference between a father paying his child's mother "child
support" and the mother being forced to pay money to the father as
punishment, or to somehow 'pay to rebuild something that can never be
rebuilt' for withholding time with the children?

I see a difference between contributing to the support of one's child, and
being required to pay penalties for having done something wrong, yes.

I'm not sure why you start from the position that the relationship 'can
never be rebuilt', though.

Both are poor substitutes for actual time with, and direct support from,
both parents.

Nor did I claim, at any time, that they were good substitutes.


Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
news:ufOfg.1336$sP1.134@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Phil #3" wrote in message
et...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...
[snip]

Apparently, you see a father's financial contribution for the
support
of his children as equivalent to "forcing women to clean the
father's
residence, do his grocery shopping, run errands, clean his cloths,
do
his ironing, provide sexual services".

That's very sad.

Sadder yet that no matter how many times it is explained, you cannot
understand the fact that 'paying child support' is not 'supporting
children'.
Bob's point that went completely over your head is that to be treated
in
a similar manner, if the father is forced to provide in a manner as
if
the marriage had remained intact, so should the mother. Like a true
feminist you seem to feel that holding men to a higher standard is
advancement.

And I would have stated anything like that.......... where?


Phil #3


Did you mean something besides the tenor of all your anti-father posts
or
including them?

Hmmm, I'll take that to mean that you've totally missed my posts about
the
mother who interferes with the father/child relationship, and how she
should
be compelled to make recompense by paying for counselling for father and
child to repair the relationship.

Just as long as it's not punitive. That's reserved strictly for fathers.

Your words. Not mine.




Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
news:BuOfg.1339$sP1.626@fed1read07...

The femwits argue both sides of the issue and have a situational
position
based on whether it is men being forced to do court ordered things
versus
a woman being forced to do court ordered things.
==
But...the problem for men (and strong women) is that the state (and
many
custodial parents) considers women weak and incapable.
Hence, they are victims simply by their existence. As inherent victims,
they cannot be held responsible for
their failures and and must be protected through legislation.
==

If you want to look at the payments men have to make to women - it is a
form
of payment for past sexual services of a prostitute. So much down and so
much a month. A time payment system. But most of us are overpaying for
it.

That is exactly right. Their prostitution is legal ONLY if they choose
bear
the child of their "john". In fact, it is state sanctioned. The state
encourages and assists these whores in pursuing their fees!

I am not so sure that women look at it as classifying themselves as a
whore, but apparently many are extremely comfortable with accepting the
role.