A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"dead beat" parent round-up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:22 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat

parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4

news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the

term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting

in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-------
I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men

where
destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers.

---------------------------
Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute.
All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their
income garnished.
-------------------------

It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared')
to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their

children.
-----------------------
And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good
friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there
for a long time.
------------------------

I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any

longer.
That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the

very
agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to

'solve'.
-------------------
As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a
scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just
reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking
at the other side.

~AZ~





  #12  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:22 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat

parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4

news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the

term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting

in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-------
I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men

where
destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers.

---------------------------
Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute.
All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their
income garnished.
-------------------------

It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared')
to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their

children.
-----------------------
And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good
friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there
for a long time.
------------------------

I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any

longer.
That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the

very
agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to

'solve'.
-------------------
As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a
scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just
reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking
at the other side.

~AZ~





  #13  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:22 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up


"Dusty" wrote in message
...

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat

parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4

news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the

term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting

in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
-------
I'll bet you a beer (of your choice) that better than 90% of these men

where
destitute, down-on-their-luck, unemployed, fathers.

---------------------------
Heinekin Dark thankyouverymuch. Of course 90% of these men were destitute.
All the ones who are earning any kind of money are already having their
income garnished.
-------------------------

It would be better to help these men (and the single woman their 'snared')
to find employment, then to jail them for failure to support their

children.
-----------------------
And with the bonds set for some of the guys, unless they have very good
friends or family to loan them the money, they are going to be sitting there
for a long time.
------------------------

I predict, that soon, there will be no one to use as a scapegoat any

longer.
That very soon, there will be no one to point a finger at, save for the

very
agencies (federal, state, and local) which create such problems to

'solve'.
-------------------
As long as men and women keep getting together there will always be a
scapegoat, (unless the laws change). I'm just angry that the media just
reports what the pro-cs people want them to and there's not anyone looking
at the other side.

~AZ~





  #14  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:26 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

-----------------------------------
Operation child-support
Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this
April 1, 2004

It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story
about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents.

The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay
child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1
is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that
they *can't* pay it.

Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge
according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family
Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to
calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only
restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be
"appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in
every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments"
based on a percentage of money collected.

In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required
child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is
based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same
theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had
their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that
after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one.

Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support
awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative
expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing
influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to
assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is
held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The
mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not
accountable to anyone.

While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely
harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers.
For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with
two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her
ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the
father $34,000.
This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special
educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the
father's support obligation.

Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt
corruption:
? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to
certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company
contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct
financial stake in high child support awards.
? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm
called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child
support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other
than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income
Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies,
Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher
the child support awards, the more money this company makes.

The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the
welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because
welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline
levels, appears to be largely uncollectable.

There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support
collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal
government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross
inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and
middle-income fathers are financially devastated.

"Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be
exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become
enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the
fathers victimized by the family court system.

There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of
the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of
their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That
is, if you really want to learn the truth.






  #15  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:26 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

-----------------------------------
Operation child-support
Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this
April 1, 2004

It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story
about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents.

The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay
child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1
is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that
they *can't* pay it.

Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge
according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family
Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to
calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only
restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be
"appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in
every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments"
based on a percentage of money collected.

In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required
child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is
based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same
theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had
their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that
after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one.

Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support
awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative
expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing
influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to
assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is
held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The
mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not
accountable to anyone.

While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely
harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers.
For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with
two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her
ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the
father $34,000.
This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special
educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the
father's support obligation.

Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt
corruption:
? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to
certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company
contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct
financial stake in high child support awards.
? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm
called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child
support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other
than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income
Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies,
Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher
the child support awards, the more money this company makes.

The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the
welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because
welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline
levels, appears to be largely uncollectable.

There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support
collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal
government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross
inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and
middle-income fathers are financially devastated.

"Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be
exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become
enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the
fathers victimized by the family court system.

There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of
the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of
their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That
is, if you really want to learn the truth.






  #16  
Old April 2nd 04, 05:26 PM
AZ Astrea
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

~AZ~

-----------------------------------
Operation child-support
Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this
April 1, 2004

It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story
about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents.

The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay
child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1
is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that
they *can't* pay it.

Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge
according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family
Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to
calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only
restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be
"appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in
every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments"
based on a percentage of money collected.

In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required
child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is
based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same
theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had
their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that
after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one.

Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support
awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative
expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing
influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to
assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is
held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The
mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not
accountable to anyone.

While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely
harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers.
For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with
two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her
ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the
father $34,000.
This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special
educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the
father's support obligation.

Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt
corruption:
? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to
certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company
contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct
financial stake in high child support awards.
? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm
called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child
support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other
than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income
Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies,
Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher
the child support awards, the more money this company makes.

The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the
welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because
welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline
levels, appears to be largely uncollectable.

There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support
collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal
government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross
inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and
middle-income fathers are financially devastated.

"Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be
exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become
enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the
fathers victimized by the family court system.

There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of
the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of
their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That
is, if you really want to learn the truth.






  #17  
Old April 3rd 04, 03:03 AM
Mysonsfather \(AKA ZonaHawk\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today.
I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our
state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails
regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith.

Michael

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?



  #18  
Old April 3rd 04, 03:03 AM
Mysonsfather \(AKA ZonaHawk\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today.
I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our
state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails
regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith.

Michael

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?



  #19  
Old April 3rd 04, 03:03 AM
Mysonsfather \(AKA ZonaHawk\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

As a fellow Tucsonan, I am pleased to hear about your letter to kvoa. I
didn't see the report on channel 4 but I sure heard about it at work today.
I was also prompted to write a letter, not only to KVOA, but also to our
state Rep Kolbe, who has yet to respond to any of my letters and emails
regarding child support issues. Keep up the faith.

Michael

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story

on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?



  #20  
Old April 3rd 04, 10:26 PM
Werebat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "dead beat" parent round-up

AZ Astrea wrote:

"Gini52" wrote in message
..
In article , AZ Astrea says...

Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat

parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4

news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the

term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads

but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*

woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten

them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can

all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will

be
listening?

==============
Ya know, I've been wanting to do this for years and never seem to find the
time/motivation (I confess). You are right--We do need a bevy of

well-written
editable(?)letters posted here that could be sent to various media

/government
outlets. Umm...Kenneth? :-)

----------------------------
I agree. I have started and stopped over and over a 'standardized' letter
that could be used for that purpose but I am not as good a writer as many
here. I receive the ACLU action alerts that are letters about various
subjects that I can add comments to and then I send it to my Congressmen via
fax or e-mail. These letters are well written, they don't sound like
ranting and raving yet they get the point across very well. If you want to
see some examples go to the ACLU website at www.aclu.org and check them out.
Can anybody here write a right-to-the-point type letter without using the
terms propaganda or nazis? I couldn't.


What you want is a little of your own propaganda, that doesn't look like
such.

Feed me the facts you want presented and I could write you anything.


I'll post a copy of the e-mail I sent.


Cool.

- Ron ^*^
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
Kids should work. LaVonne Carlson General 22 December 7th 03 05:27 AM
The Determination of Child Custody in the USA Fighting for kids Child Support 21 November 17th 03 02:35 AM
The Plant answer DNA swab Question Kane Spanking 11 September 26th 03 09:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.