Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"pandora" wrote in message
news:ceGdnVdWT59YtrXYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Tracy" wrote in message
. ..
I wouldn't lump all divorced men into the same cateogy of an ex-husband
who
cheated on his wife, nor would I lump all men who drink into the same
category as an alcoholic... so I guess I'm asking others to not lump all
single mothers into the same stereotypical view of a drug abusing mother.

I am with you there. That's why I asked why you had even brought it up.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions in doing so.

No need in apologizing. Asking questions and asking for clarification is
much better then assuming. I don't look at a question for clarification as
an assumption.

Tracy

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected
(starved, beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected
or exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents. The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is
the death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability
from that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered
by the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent
(CP) and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the
concept of 50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other 50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are
YOU willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at
least a little something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who
receives child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other
hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard
to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels
to which I object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as
a compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree
that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

Gee, I don't recall seeing a post where someone said that a label forced
behavior to match that label. I must say that I do skim posts
occasionally, though. Maybe you could direct me to the post wehere
someone actually said that being given a certain label forces you to do
certain things.

This was the point to which I was responding - and please note, that I
stated "I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to
act in a particular way" - at no time did I state that a certain label
"forces" a person to do anything.

You DO understand the difference between causation, and force?

Anyway, here's the post to which I was responding

* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Chris" wrote in message
news:MlvVg.863$UJ2.52@fed1read07...

"You DO realize that being labeled as "NCP" carries with it the burden of
having a money judgement against you to your ex, the loss of your
children, and the very real threat of imprisonment, among other wonderful
things. You cool with that?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, the label of NCP is not the CAUSE of a money judgement, nor does it
FORCE a money judgement. There are other actions involved in the
creation of a money judgement.

You are so asinine sometimes, and I think you know it. The label NCP and
the money judgement et al go hand in hand, and you perfectly well know it.
Back to you silly little nitpicking.


The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the loss of children, nor does it
FORCE the loss of children. There are other actions involved in the loss
of children.

See above


The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the threat of imprisonment, nor does
it FORCE the threat of imprisonment. There are other actions involved in
the threat of imprisonment.

See above


Now Teach, I've dumbed this down about as much as I possibly can for
you - I've pretty much kept it to words of one and two syllables for you.

See "asinine" part above.


If you still can't understand, then I suggest you go ask someone else.

Grow up

ROFLMAO!!! That was the most reasoned debate/argument you could come up
with?

Tell ya what - when you can drop the name calling, and the other tactics you
seem to have embraced, and can present a reasoned, adult debate/argument,
THEN we can talk.

Until then, you may want to consider taking your own advice.

Have a lovely day.

"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
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected
(starved, beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected
or exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents. The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is
born out of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is
the death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable
single parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability
from that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting.
Where might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered
by the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of
couse only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent
(CP) and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP
labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the
concept of 50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other 50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are
YOU willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at
least a little something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who
receives child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the
other hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little
regard to if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the
labels to which I object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor
as a compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree
that the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

Gee, I don't recall seeing a post where someone said that a label
forced behavior to match that label. I must say that I do skim posts
occasionally, though. Maybe you could direct me to the post wehere
someone actually said that being given a certain label forces you to do
certain things.

This was the point to which I was responding - and please note, that I
stated "I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to
act in a particular way" - at no time did I state that a certain label
"forces" a person to do anything.

You DO understand the difference between causation, and force?

Anyway, here's the post to which I was responding

* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Chris" wrote in message
news:MlvVg.863$UJ2.52@fed1read07...

"You DO realize that being labeled as "NCP" carries with it the burden
of having a money judgement against you to your ex, the loss of your
children, and the very real threat of imprisonment, among other
wonderful things. You cool with that?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, the label of NCP is not the CAUSE of a money judgement, nor does it
FORCE a money judgement. There are other actions involved in the
creation of a money judgement.

You are so asinine sometimes, and I think you know it. The label NCP and
the money judgement et al go hand in hand, and you perfectly well know
it. Back to you silly little nitpicking.


The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the loss of children, nor does it
FORCE the loss of children. There are other actions involved in the
loss of children.

See above


The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the threat of imprisonment, nor
does it FORCE the threat of imprisonment. There are other actions
involved in the threat of imprisonment.

See above


Now Teach, I've dumbed this down about as much as I possibly can for
you - I've pretty much kept it to words of one and two syllables for
you.

See "asinine" part above.


If you still can't understand, then I suggest you go ask someone else.

Grow up

ROFLMAO!!! That was the most reasoned debate/argument you could come up
with?

Ther *is* no debate/argument, Moon. Don't be so foolish! The point you are
belabouring is not even a point--it is a silly little nit-pick! It has
NOTHING to do with the issue being discussed!

If the terms CP/NCP are as meaningless as you say they are, let's just DROP
THEM and call both parents "co-parents." With the same rights and
responsibilities. EXCEPT, of course, in cases where one parent refuses to
be a co-parent. THEN you can apply your terms to your heart's delight.


Tell ya what - when you can drop the name calling, and the other tactics
you seem to have embraced, and can present a reasoned, adult
debate/argument, THEN we can talk.

I'm not calling you names, Moon. I am labeling your tactics. Trying to
focus on whether the label NCP forces a certain behavior IS asinine! And it
is NOT the topic under discussion, however much you try to make it so.

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"pandora" wrote in message
news:ceGdnVdWT59YtrXYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Tracy" wrote in message
. ..
I wouldn't lump all divorced men into the same cateogy of an ex-husband
who
cheated on his wife, nor would I lump all men who drink into the same
category as an alcoholic... so I guess I'm asking others to not lump
all
single mothers into the same stereotypical view of a drug abusing
mother.

I am with you there. That's why I asked why you had even brought it up.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions in doing so.

No need in apologizing. Asking questions and asking for clarification is
much better then assuming. I don't look at a question for clarification
as
an assumption.

Cool. You would then, be a rarity around here. :-)

CWQ

Tracy

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
"pandora" wrote in message
news:ceGdnVdWT59YtrXYnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@scnresearch. com...

"Tracy" wrote in message
. ..
I wouldn't lump all divorced men into the same cateogy of an ex-husband
who
cheated on his wife, nor would I lump all men who drink into the same
category as an alcoholic... so I guess I'm asking others to not lump all
single mothers into the same stereotypical view of a drug abusing
mother.

I am with you there. That's why I asked why you had even brought it up.
I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intentions in doing so.

No need in apologizing. Asking questions and asking for clarification is
much better then assuming. I don't look at a question for clarification
as an assumption.

You also don't tell people that you wish they had died in childbirth like
Pandora does.

"Tracy" wrote in message
. ..
"Chris" wrote in message
news:0j%Ug.762$UJ2.294@fed1read07...

"pandora" wrote in message
news:X6KdnSPgFuIC9LnYnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@scnresearch. com...


Indeed as do I. This entire discussion has me wondering just what
kinds
of
people would deny a family the name. Do they get some kind of jollies
out
of being superior, in their mind, to someone else?

A better question would be: why is it so important for such folks to be
considered a "family"?

That is up to the individuals living within the same household. It is no
different than a man and woman who are living together as man & wife.
Some
states will recognize their living condition as a common law marriage, and
other states won't.

Ok, but why is it so important for them to identify with such title?


Tracy

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow
has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato"
or
even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child
support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually
fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object.

But WHY, since "labels don't mean jack - they're just words"?


Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow
has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato"
or
even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives child
support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict.

You forgot "NCP".

On the other hand, some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually
fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I object.

Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:MlvVg.863$UJ2.52@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news

"Chris" wrote in message
news:WKjVg.822$UJ2.463@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money somehow
has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP) and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the 50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT. Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

Or just reverse the labels every other year, and see what happens.

No matter what the label is, it doesn't change anything about form
or
function.

Then you should have NO problem being labeled as the "NCP" by your
kourt
people since nothing else (form/function) will change.

I have no problem with labels - it doesn't change what my priorities
are,
nor how I live my life. Call me Fred for all I care, it doesn't change
anything.

You DO realize that being labeled as "NCP" carries with it the burden of
having a money judgement against you to your ex, the loss of your
children,
and the very real threat of imprisonment, among other wonderful things.
You
cool with that?

The label as nothing to do with the sanctions. Actions have a relation to
the sanctions.

Uhuh, such action being some fool in a black robe creating a label.






Check out a book called Frindle.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP)
and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand, some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.

But they're only labels; they don't mean "jack". Thus, how can you be
certain of what's inside?


You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking
the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone
else might impose?

Phil #3


Phil #3