Where the CS goes....

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Joy B wrote in message
om...
Thanks, I apreciate the good advice. She's actually turning
12
now
but
that's not so relevant to the issue at hand. It's the second
day
of
the party that he is available and I have already sent an
e-mail
suggesting he do something later that day. He still has yet
to
respond. I will definitely however, address the issue of the
drinking
and driving with him. My daughter is the one who told me
about
it
the
last time so I will have a talk with her also and take the
advice
of
one of the other posters and give her my cell phone to take
just
in
case. I have only met his new wife once but my ex-mother in
law
tells
me that she is a very heavy drinker as well so that doesn't
comfort
me
too much either. I try so hard to keep an open mind but
can't
help
but
feel he is going to hurt her again by not calling for
another
8+
months. We'll just have to wait and see. Thanks again.
Joy
===


I would suggest easing into the drinking and driving issue
very
carefully.
If he is like most folks, he will say that having one or two
drinks
doesn't
impair his driving and whatnot and it could turn into a BIG
fight.
I
have
also had this come up with my daughters father, she is old
enough
to
tell
me
that he has a few beers and it is very disturbing. As of the
last
visit,
there has been no more visits so I have not had to worry. I am
not
against
drinking but in 12 years of raising my daughter I have never
found
it
necessary to drink any alcohol and drive with her in the car.
He
would
see
her a handful of times but have to drink?!?!

I realize you and others are trying to give situational advice
on
a
couple
of NCP's drinking while parenting.

But the bigger picture is the courts and the states do not care
about
this
issue if it is the CP mothers doing the drinking or doing drugs.
In
my
state part of the demographics published on the state's web site
shows
50%
of welfare clients (92% are mothers) admit they have drug and
alcohol
problems. I have always wondered how many more there are who
don't
admit
they have a problem.

So for me the larger question is - if it is appropriate for CP
mothers
to
react to NCP fathers drinking or doing drugs, isn't it just as
appropriate
to have a similar reaction to CP mothers drinking or doing
drugs?
Since
the
CP mothers have custody on average 80-100% of the time, I
consider
the
mothers' drinking and drug use to be a bigger issue and impact
on
the
children than a father using alcohol or drugs during a
visitation
time.

That may well be true, Bob. But individual CPs have the absolute
right
to
tell indicidual NCPs that they may not drink and drive with the
children
in
the car, and use legal means to prevent them from doing so.

Not according to custody law. CP's have the right to make decisions
about
a
child's education, religious training, and medical treatment, but
they
have
no legal authority over what the NCP does while parenting. They may
disagree with how an NCP acts during parenting time, but the CP has
no
legal
right to tell an NCP how to behave or parent. You are headed down a
slippery slope with an argument where one parent can exercise
control
over
the behavior of another parent based on their personal whims of how
they
should parent.

Come on, Bob! It is illegal to drive while impaired by alcohol or
drugs.
I
could never just shrug it off and say "Well, the kid is with dad, so
what
the heck." It would not be about my telling the NCP how to parent--it
would
be about getting another drunk driver off the road. I wish someone
had
cared enough to keep the (*&*% drunk who smashed into our car and
injured
my
daughters off the road. I'm sure he thought that just a few drinks
wouldn't
impair him, either. CP, NCP, or whoever the heck else--they should
NEVER
drive while under the influence. And if I had to go so far as hiring
someone to take pictures of him drinking and call the police when he
got
behind the wheel, I'd do so. The children of folks who drive under
the
influence didn't ask to have an idiot for a parent.

I am just as sensitive about this issue as you are because I tried to
get
help from a judge to stop it. The defining moment for me was when my
children were in the car with their mom after she had been out partying
late
with "friends" and she drove off the road through a ditch and into a
fence.
My children told me she was drunk. Of course, my ex denied she had been
drinking. All the judge would do is require mutually stipulated
language
in
the decree that neither parent would drink and drive with the children
in
the car. It was like a joke and meaningless because the words on a
piece
of
paper did nothing to stop the problem.

I'm assuming that the police must not have become involved, because,
surely,
they would have tested for alcohol. How could any mother do that to her
children, and act as if she had done nothing wrong?!

Easy answer. You call a tow truck to get your car out of the homeowners
front yard. You treat the accident like a hit and run and leave the
homeowner with a busted up fence and no indication of how it got broken.
You "date" the tow truck operator for helping you out of a legal jam. Then
you claim you weren't drinking. It doesn't take much of a conscience to
pull that off.


And the illegal part of driving under the influence of alcohol and drug
abuse is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of care for the children
in
the home, and the way children are forced to adapt to compensate for the
lack of care, leave emotional scars for life.

I know, Bob. I have children in my classroom who fit this description.
And
there is no way to get any help for them until you "see bruises." These
kids just seem to get lost in the system that was supposedly set up to
help
them!

I was lucky. By the time my children got to about the third grade their
teachers started becoming more vocal about their willingness to help me (and
testify) should I decide to go for a custody change. They told me they were
violating school district rules by volenteering to be a witness. When I
tried to move towards a custody change, and spent thousandsof dollars, the
judge cut off my attempt saying she would not hear the case.



My point was to state an objection to one parent having the ability to
act
as judge and jury when they don't like the other parent's behavior. I
tried
to use the system and it failed me. I tried getting help from Children
Services and they told me they only get involved after the fact and
never
before something bad happens to the children. I tried letting my
children
not return to their mother's care, and I was threatened with jail for
custodial interference. The sad truth is there is no solution to the
problem of parental drug and alcohol abuse and the legal system has a
track
record of ignoring this problem.

Unfortunately, that is true in far too many cases.

I couldn't agree more.

Hell, Glow...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
drug test, would you?


OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
disability benefits???????

ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
thought.........

....the US is worse off than most of the people *I*N* the US thought.

Many of us can't help but believe that if the big majority of ordinary citizens
actually knew what was being done by this socialist government they'd hang the
lot of them.

Mel Gamble

Hell, Glow...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I wouldn't object to that, Joy. But how about the welfare recipients who
run out of benefits and are placed on SSI because of the "disability" that
causes them to drink and/or drug? Since they are "disabled" in their
ability to refuse alcohol/drugs, surely you wouldn't expect them to pass a
drug test, would you?


OMG!! you are not seriously telling me addicts in your Country are put onto
disability benefits???????

ROFLMAO you have got to be kidding me DAMN the US is worse off than I
thought.........

....the US is worse off than most of the people *I*N* the US thought.

Many of us can't help but believe that if the big majority of ordinary citizens
actually knew what was being done by this socialist government they'd hang the
lot of them.

Mel Gamble

"Paltry"??????....

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
on drugs?
2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
But, don't get me started. Well, OK since you already got me started--Yeah,
Bush's July tax cuts left us with all of 24.00 more dollars in our monthly
income. That'll create a lot of jobs, eh? We paid almost enough federal
income tax alone in 2002 (16k+) to support a family of 4 above poverty
level for a year (18k). Yeah, I'm ****ed about tax waste but the anger isn't
directed at the paltry amount going to welfare moms and I'll be damned if I
want to foot the bill to drug test them all.

You bought my daughter's mother a $5000 jeep, a new house and a bunch of
furniture. And that was just in the last year. You're going to hand her
another handful of cash next year when she "graduates" from one of those
"non-welfare" programs. She gets food stamps and a few other benefits that are
"not welfare" besides all that cash and as far as any government data about
people "on welfare"....she doesn't count, she's just "low income".....

Sure quacks like a duck though.....

Mel Gamble

"Paltry"??????....

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE, THEN GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't care if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs, but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child as long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father should step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before handing out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the parents who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare mothers hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really going on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the children" but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when "mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for statistics to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare mothers
on drugs?
2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs is a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?
But, don't get me started. Well, OK since you already got me started--Yeah,
Bush's July tax cuts left us with all of 24.00 more dollars in our monthly
income. That'll create a lot of jobs, eh? We paid almost enough federal
income tax alone in 2002 (16k+) to support a family of 4 above poverty
level for a year (18k). Yeah, I'm ****ed about tax waste but the anger isn't
directed at the paltry amount going to welfare moms and I'll be damned if I
want to foot the bill to drug test them all.

You bought my daughter's mother a $5000 jeep, a new house and a bunch of
furniture. And that was just in the last year. You're going to hand her
another handful of cash next year when she "graduates" from one of those
"non-welfare" programs. She gets food stamps and a few other benefits that are
"not welfare" besides all that cash and as far as any government data about
people "on welfare"....she doesn't count, she's just "low income".....

Sure quacks like a duck though.....

Mel Gamble

Wait a minute, Gini...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
THEN
GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
as
long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
going
on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
"mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
mothers
on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
is
a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
drugs
to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
*on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
"child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
to
what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
children they have and their level of need.

This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.

Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
be
right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
The
liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
welf
are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
for
liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
should be violated based on gender.

....where's the violation? Seems to me the suggestion was that people be tested
regularly as a condition of participating in certain voluntary government
programs - sort of like being "forced" to take an eye test if you want a
drivers license. If you don't want your eyes tested, don't ask for a drivers
license. Nobody is going to force anyone to be tested "based on class" -
people can be as poor as they wish and not be tested. A mother with 3 kids can
have a monthly income of $1200 and not be tested. But if that mother wants
that $1200 to come from the government.....she's going to have to accept
whatever strings are attached to the offer.

Now you would have a valid point if the people already on welfare were not
given the option of being tested OR turning down the benefit. Forcing someone
to participate in a government program when they've done nothing wrong would be
wrong in itself...

Now if we could just get around the little problem regarding the fact that
we've already labeled the drug use as a crime, which automatically qualifies
the user for having some rights removed...

Mel Gamble

Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)

Wait a minute, Gini...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCE,
THEN
GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be done
by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do drugs,
but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to have
a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a child
as
long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of care
given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no problem
with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention of
going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a mother is
doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is really
going
on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about when
"mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of welfare
mothers
on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to their
abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports 50%
of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on drugs
is
a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug abuse.
One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread involvement
of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money and
drugs
to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference I
posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare mother
drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which I
have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No safe
haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents are
*on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
"child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off what
you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family court
mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search, refer
to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are referring
to
what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public money
being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how many
children they have and their level of need.

This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point alcohol
and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.

Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you may
be
right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot of
liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the mothers.
The
liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium on
welf
are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest welfare
standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of character
for
liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than it
should be violated based on gender.

....where's the violation? Seems to me the suggestion was that people be tested
regularly as a condition of participating in certain voluntary government
programs - sort of like being "forced" to take an eye test if you want a
drivers license. If you don't want your eyes tested, don't ask for a drivers
license. Nobody is going to force anyone to be tested "based on class" -
people can be as poor as they wish and not be tested. A mother with 3 kids can
have a monthly income of $1200 and not be tested. But if that mother wants
that $1200 to come from the government.....she's going to have to accept
whatever strings are attached to the offer.

Now you would have a valid point if the people already on welfare were not
given the option of being tested OR turning down the benefit. Forcing someone
to participate in a government program when they've done nothing wrong would be
wrong in itself...

Now if we could just get around the little problem regarding the fact that
we've already labeled the drug use as a crime, which automatically qualifies
the user for having some rights removed...

Mel Gamble

Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)

But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING
SUBSTANCE,
THEN
GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
done
by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
drugs,
but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
have
a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a
child
as
long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of
care
given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
problem
with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
of
going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a
mother
is
doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
really
going
on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about
when
"mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of
welfare
mothers
on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to
their
abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports
50%
of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
drugs
is
a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
abuse.
One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
involvement
of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money
and
drugs
to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference
I
posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
mother
drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which
I
have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No
safe
haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents
are
*on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
"child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from
Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
what
you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family
court
mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
refer
to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
referring
to
what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public
money
being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how
many
children they have and their level of need.

This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
alcohol
and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.

Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
may
be
right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
of
liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the
mothers.
The
liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium
on
welf
are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
welfare
standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of
character
for
liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or
what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that
are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than
it
should be violated based on gender.
Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
===
===

Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th
amendment
prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a
group
of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not
the
intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
(like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
government define a class.

My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way
they
want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare
benefits.
IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the
protected
class because of their personal lifestyle choices.
==
But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering substances
before we give them their welfare checks?

....because their checks aren't "for the children"....

Mel Gamble

But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Joy B" wrote in message
om...
NO PARENT SHOULD EVER DO ANY KIND OF MIND ALTERING
SUBSTANCE,
THEN
GET
BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR WITH THEIR CHILD IN IT!!!! I don't
care
if
you are CP, NCP or what! Bigger picture, it should NEVER be
done
by
anyone, parent or not a parent. Now, I don't drink or do
drugs,
but
nor am I a prude. I think it is acceptable for a parent to
have
a
glass or two of an alcoholic beverage while caring for a
child
as
long
as it is in moderation and does not affect the quality of
care
given
to the child. I stress, IN MODERATION!!! I would have no
problem
with
dad having a couple of drinks at home if he had no intention
of
going
anywhere.

I also feel that drugs, in any amount are unacceptable while
caring
for a child. As far as your question, absolutely! If a
mother
is
doing
excessive drinking, while caring for the child, the father
should
step
up and "react".

Now to open another can of worms, since you brought up the
welfare
issue, I believe that a law should be passed that anyone who
collects
welfare should have mandatory periodoc drug testing before
handing
out
any kind of benefits to them. This would help identify the
parents
who
are on drugs and raising children, then perhaps our less
fortunate
children could have a better chance of survival.

I couldn't agree more. We, as a society, are paying welfare
mothers
hard
earned tax dollars to "lift them out of poverty." What is
really
going
on
is tax dollars are being diverted to mothers with drug and
alcohol
problems
to continue their addictions. The money is paid "for the
children"
but
the
children never see the money. The crack dealers brag about
when
"mothers'
payday" occurs and how good their business is that time of the
month.
==
Oh puleeze, Bob. Aren't you always (rightly) clamouring for
statistics
to
back assertions and for equal protection rights?
So tell me:
1. Where is your proof that there is a systemic problem of
welfare
mothers
on drugs?

Enter "welfare mothers AND drugs" into your favorite search engine
and
you'll get results like this:

http://www.cwla.org/programs/bhd/aodcwfactsheet.htm

Note that surveys show between 40-80% of welfare mothers are drug
and
alcohol abusers creating extra costs for the system related to
their
abuse
and neglect of children. In 1997 a CWLA survey concluded 67% of
welfare
mothers needed alcohol and drug abuse therapy. My state reports
50%
of
welfare clients have drug and alcohol abuse problems.

2. Where is your tax waste data that proves welfare mothers on
drugs
is
a
greater tax waste than other areas such as corporate welfare?

My concern is not about corporate welfare. The incidence of child
abuse
and
neglect skyrockets when poverty is mixed with alcohol and drug
abuse.
One
of the major problems we have in America is the widespread
involvement
of
welfare mothers in drug dealing. They are dealing to get money
and
drugs
to
support their habits, not their children. Note that the reference
I
posted
above cites a Columbia University study that estimates welfare
mother
drug
and alcohol abuse costs this country $10 billion per year.
==
That's not what it says, Bob. It is referencing this article (which
I
have
not read and I presume you have not read):

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. (1999). No
safe
haven:
Children of substance abusing parents. New York: Author.

There is no indication that this article states that these parents
are
*on*
state welfare roles as the article you referenced seems to co-mingle
"child
welfare" (which is a compilation of hundreds of organizations and
state
"child welfare system" which are not interchangeable). And from
Donna
Shalala's remarks to the Child Welfare League:

"Our message to parents is clear: if you're not providing for your
children,
we'll garnish your wages, suspend your driver's and professional
licenses,
track you across state lines, and, if necessary, make you work off
what
you
owe.

That's our vision. And, that's real welfare reform."

How much has the Child Welfare League contributed to the family
court
mess
we have today and how does the CWL benefit from from that mess and
these
"statistics" which are clearly exaggerated and manipulated?
==
==

When this article, and others available by doing an Internet search,
refer
to the "public child welfare system" I can only assume they are
referring
to
what gets called the "welfare system" by most of us. It's public
money
being given to mothers who qualify for public support based on how
many
children they have and their level of need.

This is just one of many sources on the Internet to prove my point
alcohol
and drug abuse is a major problem amongst welfare mothers.

Regarding your comments about the report overstating the problem, you
may
be
right. But my first reaction was since this group seems to cite a lot
of
liberal sources, they may be understating the problem with the
mothers.
The
liberals are the ones pressing for eliminating the 5 year moratorium
on
welf
are to work programs and admitting mothers cannot meet the latest
welfare
standards because of drug and alcohol problems would be out of
character
for
liberals. They would normally cite some other feel-good reason like
mothers
need to be with their children full-time to support ongoing child
development.
===
I don't know and that's why statistics should be viewed with an eye of
skepticism--
Neither you nor I are sure about what they are attempting to prove or
what
agenda they are
attempting to bolster. That is the
normal tendency with statistics that are compiled and interpreted by any
interest group.
I prefer looking at raw data and drawing my own conclusions but
unfortunately
(or maybe, fortunately) my days are a little too full to spend time
researching/interpreting data.
In this case, though, the info rings of the same types of studies that
are
used to assert that
uncollected child support is a cause of child poverty when this is true
only
in a very small fraction of cases.
Anyway, my assertions stand: Tax dollars paid for welfare moms is a
comparatively tiny amount of government waste
and equal protection should not be violated based on class anymore than
it
should be violated based on gender.
Period. (I borrowed that "Period" from Tracy :-)
===
===

Okay now I'm getting it. Equal Protection is the issue. The 14th
amendment
prevents the Federal government from providing special privileges to a
group
of citizens based on their standing as a unique class. Once we move down
the slippery slope of providing Federal money to citizens based on their
unique class (welfare eligible), the 14th amendment gets violated. Court
ruling after court ruling has determined providing a citizen equal
protection because they are not a member of the privileged class is not
the
intent of the law. So what I don't get personally is how the Federal
government can provide selected benefits to preferred classes of citizens
(like welfare recipients) and still not have to face Constitutional
challenges under the 14th amendment. The real issue is how does the
government define a class.

My personal opinion is the courts use the 14th amendment whichever way
they
want to apply it to justify bogus decisions. I see no reason to not
establish means tested criteria for establishing need for welfare
benefits.
IOW - the druggies don't get public money and the clean living citizens
qualify for public money. The druggies remove themselves from the
protected
class because of their personal lifestyle choices.
==
But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering substances
before we give them their welfare checks?

....because their checks aren't "for the children"....

Mel Gamble

"Mel Gamble" wrote
But it isn't a problem with them, Gini...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...
.............................
==
But, how do we make certain that CEOs are not using mood-altering
substances
before we give them their welfare checks?

...because their checks aren't "for the children"....
==
Ah, so when the government discriminates on the basis of class, it is in the
the "best interest of the children,"
so that is acceptable. Fine, then it should be able to discriminate on the
basis of gender for
"the best interest of the children." Gee, where have I heard that before? Oh
yeah, I think it is the policy of NOW.
Note to group: Mel and Bob have assumed NOW's position on discrimination.
==
==

Mel Gamble