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

"Chris" wrote in message
news:cNogg.1424$sP1.1053@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3Eegg.1400$sP1.1303@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Wa9gg.1393$sP1.167@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.

Are you suggesting that you are in favor of punitive damages charged
against
mothers too? If so, what is your recommendation in this case?

I have already posted those twice.

I am not interested in what you have done. I am asking you a question.
Either you will answer it or you will not.

I already answered it more than once.

Apparently, English must not be your native language.

Um, it sure is.

Most foks fluent in
the English language would understand that I am requesting you to answer
MY
question.

You asked a question that had already been asked, and answered. To display
your sheer laziness in not bothering to read the answers was amusing.

In other words, I ask the question, THEN you answer it.... in that
order.

LMAO!! Get over yourself.

That you previously answered it to someone else is meaningless to me.
Thank you for answering it in the below statement.

Your welcome - thank you for reading what I had already posted, and simply
copied and pasted, to suit your laziness.



"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?"

"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."

The above is not punitive.


"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?"

The above is not punitive.


"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."

The above is not punitive.










Phil #3

wrote in message
ups.com...

Chris wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote in message
om...
Gini wrote:
"Random Stranger" wrote
....................................
Perhaps he'll think twice or three times before witholding
support
for

the next 8-10 years. In that regard the child may be way better off.
Without the jail time the guy may go another 10 years without paying
support, directly affecting the child.

==
Perhaps. But, you are now making assumptions to fit your argument.
There
is
nothing
in the system requiring the custodial parent to spend the money on
the
child.

Agreed. I was responding to the question about how the childs best
interests will be served. I was speculating; notice I said "perhaps".

There aren't enough facts for us to know. I'm just trying to point out
this isn't a clear-cut case of "innocent dad, evil judge, poor child".
It might be, or it might not be. It could be "truly dead-beat dad,
wise
judge, poor child". Likely, the truth is somewhere between the
extremes.

Hence, we
cannot conclude that not paying the support directly affects the
child.
In
fact, if there
were checks in place to insure the money is reserved strictly for
the
child's needs, there
would be greater compliance by the payor. As it is, only
noncustodial
parents are mandated
by law to spend a percentage of their income "on their child(ren)."
(Actually, they are only mandated
to give it to the custodial parent.) There is no such mandate
of custodial parents or parents in intact families.
==

*sigh* Agreed. I never quite understood why CPs don't have to somehow
account for how the CS is spent. Even if numbers are bogus, I'd like
them to have to make the effort to justify it (XXX as part of rent,
YYY
as part of groceries, ZZZ for dance lessons, ...).

It'll never happen.

Nor should it. The government people have NO business being in the
business
of private family finances!



When the court system mandates transfers between families in the form
of child support, alimony, or whathaveyou, they already ARE in that
buisness. It would be nice if there was a way to check that thier
meddling is having it's intended effect.

Actually, they are in the business of extortion!

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Number 1 - I have no intention of posting my budget for your consumption.
Number 2 - I have not stated that I am burdened.

My budget works quite well, thank you. Any bills that come into the
household get paid on time, as well as the unexpected expenses like my
child's medical expenses (hospital, dental, doctor) when she was injured.

SO now you're stating that you and the kids live quite comfortable on the
small amount of CS you do receive.
Thank You, you have just confirmed that CS guidelines & laws are an absolute
waste of everyone's time.

"Gini" wrote in message
newsifgg.559$nV4.331@trndny03...

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote

"Chris" wrote
...............
Sperm banks and lesbian parents
are the wave of the future.
=====
No they aren't.

Clearly, it follows from the truth of my statement.
==
Lesbians will never comprise the majority of women.
Your statement assumes that women have no sexual or emotional
need/desire for men. Other than extremists, (which are a small
percentage of women) they do. I think the wave of the future will be
men being much more cautious in relationships and that they will soon
have birth control pills and that will result in an abrupt slowing of the
population growth.

Perhaps that too. I did not claim that the majority of women would be
lesbians. It also does not follow from my statement that women have no
heterosexual desire for men.

==

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Number 1 - I have no intention of posting my budget for your consumption.
Number 2 - I have not stated that I am burdened.

My budget works quite well, thank you. Any bills that come into the
household get paid on time, as well as the unexpected expenses like my
child's medical expenses (hospital, dental, doctor) when she was injured.

SO now you're stating that you and the kids live quite comfortable on the
small amount of CS you do receive.

Not what I said. What I said was that my budget works quite well, and our
bills get paid on time.
I made no statements about comfort levels, or the presence or absence of
extras and/or luxuries.

Merely that I made a budget that works.


Thank You, you have just confirmed that CS guidelines & laws are an
absolute waste of everyone's time.

"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Chris" wrote
"Gini" wrote

"Chris" wrote
...............
Sperm banks and lesbian parents
are the wave of the future.
=====
No they aren't.

Clearly, it follows from the truth of my statement.
==
Lesbians will never comprise the majority of women.
Your statement assumes that women have no sexual or emotional
need/desire for men. Other than extremists, (which are a small
percentage of women) they do. I think the wave of the future will be
men being much more cautious in relationships and that they will soon
have birth control pills and that will result in an abrupt slowing of the
population growth.

Perhaps that too. I did not claim that the majority of women would be
lesbians. It also does not follow from my statement that women have no
heterosexual desire for men.
==
Well, perhaps we just interpret "wave of the future" differently.
==

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:cNogg.1424$sP1.1053@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:3Eegg.1400$sP1.1303@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:Wa9gg.1393$sP1.167@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"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.

Are you suggesting that you are in favor of punitive damages
charged
against
mothers too? If so, what is your recommendation in this case?

I have already posted those twice.

I am not interested in what you have done. I am asking you a
question.
Either you will answer it or you will not.

I already answered it more than once.

Apparently, English must not be your native language.

Um, it sure is.

Most foks fluent in
the English language would understand that I am requesting you to answer
MY
question.

You asked a question that had already been asked,

Not by me.

and answered.

Not to me. Therefore, irrelevant.

To display
your sheer laziness in not bothering to read the answers was amusing.

Red herring. I have posted answers which YOU did not bother to read. Thus,
you displayed "sheer laziness" which must also be "amusing".


In other words, I ask the question, THEN you answer it.... in that
order.

LMAO!! Get over yourself.

With all due respect, what the heck are you talking about?


That you previously answered it to someone else is meaningless to me.
Thank you for answering it in the below statement.

Your welcome - thank you for reading what I had already posted, and simply
copied and pasted, to suit your laziness.

How does reading, copying, and pasting a post equate to suiting one's
"laziness"?




"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?"

"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."

The above is not punitive.


"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?"

The above is not punitive.


"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."

The above is not punitive.










Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

SO now you're stating that you and the kids live quite comfortable on the
small amount of CS you do receive.

Not what I said. What I said was that my budget works quite well, and our
bills get paid on time.
I made no statements about comfort levels, or the presence or absence of
extras and/or luxuries.

Merely that I made a budget that works.

Great, you're living like the rest of us on a limited budget.
SO what's your problem again?

"DB" wrote in message
. com...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

SO now you're stating that you and the kids live quite comfortable on
the small amount of CS you do receive.

Not what I said. What I said was that my budget works quite well, and
our bills get paid on time.
I made no statements about comfort levels, or the presence or absence of
extras and/or luxuries.

Merely that I made a budget that works.

Great, you're living like the rest of us on a limited budget.
SO what's your problem again?

I don't recall saying that I had one.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

Great, you're living like the rest of us on a limited budget.
SO what's your problem again?

I don't recall saying that I had one.

You must have a problems if you're frequenting a newsgroup about child
support!

The must be better things in life to do?