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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message .. .
"TeacherMama" wrote in message om... "ME" wrote in message ... "AZ Astrea" wrote in message ... "ME" wrote in message ... snip A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday. Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal he is the father he would support the child totally. She goes through the pregnancy without him. When the baby is 6 months old Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests. Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby. $45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support. ---------------------------- What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off with her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the child totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream, louder than words. So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing because he said it wasn't his from day 1? -------------------------- After 2 1/2 years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it. He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt ---------------------- Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it. Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case --------------------- ....Baby is now 5 years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can imagine. Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month depending on behavior and emotional outbursts. ------------------- And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there. You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young? ------------------- Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad? Noone 'blames' dad. The child's therapists have said (and is on the psych evaluation) that the childs issues seem to be related to the choices of his biological father. What exactly was said between the child and therpists is not known. Dad doesn't bother to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad owns his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week) ----------------- snip -------------------- Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this, Dad didn't do that. ------------------- Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the poor kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head. When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because' She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad.. -------------------- And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's attention to something more positive? Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. snip for length Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. Hmmm... Sounds pretty grim to me. snip for length This argument could go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the wrong. Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay for the choices of men each and every single day. Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. Hmmm... Sounds pretty grim to me. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
Because children have the right to make their own decisions without one parent telling them things about the other parent...The child has this right and it should not be influenced by talk from the other parent. Let the child make their own decision of the absent parent and then talk to them about it. I didn't say anything about giving the child a biased opinion of dad--I asked why she didn't redirect the child's attention to something else. Noone said she didn't. WHY is this child, who has never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T have? Because he sees all of his cousins, friends, neighborhood children, school children who's fathers are taking them to games, the park, for ice cream, playing with the outside---and the child wants to know why his dad doesnt do these things. Is that so hard of a concept to grasp? He sees what he doesnt have. If he sees his friend with a trampoline he wants to know why he doesnt have one. And if he wants one, is it immediately given to him? If he doesn't get exactly what he wants, does he go into fits over it? No if he wants something it is not immediatley given to him. And sometimes their are fits...as I am sure you see in your classroom wiht ADHD ODD children As you say he is focused on what he doesnt have by seeing others that have it....children do that. Yes, children do that--that is how children--and adults with credit cards--are. OUCH MY EARS--Credit Cards scare me LOL (sorry had to add that bit of humor) But the answer is sometimes "no--can't do that." And children need to learn to accept that. Yes they do This child eventually needs to understand that he has no power over the situation. Or is he given everything he wants by mom, so he thinks he should be obeyed by dad, too? By far isnt given everything.... There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad. I never said dad was nasty---he is absent and irresponsible... Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as childhood schizophrenia or something? no schizophrenia, diagnosis of ADHD and ODD Ah, now that helps to understand the situation. Do you think that dad's presence would "cure" him of these problems? No it would definitly not I have had many such children in my classroom over the years. Dad's unending presence in his life will not fix him--he needs to learn to control his behavior--and he needs help doing that. I am assuming that he is taking some sort of medication to help him. Different meds have been tried. Yes they are helping some. He gets little special help at school, specifically on those 'bad days' And getting special help at school. Solid, 2-parent families struggle to help their ADHD, ODD children. There is no magical setting or situation that can make it all better. Yes, I know. snip for length Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father. All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money? NO to live up to the responsibility of being a father---didnt you see i said before that forget about child support payments --- parental responsibilities of the mother OR father is much more than child support in form of money You very plainly said that all women can do is sit around and wait for dad to live up to his responsibilities. What do widowed women do? now that is way off the subject...most widowed women dont have children living at home that need their PARENTS (not saying their arent some)...this is about parents of small children. Sit around and wait for another man? A home with both a mother and a father is the ideal thing for children--but it is not always possible. And "sitting around waiting" doesn't fix that. I didnt mean sitting around waiting literally. Figure of speech. What? Women can't work and earn money? Sure they can--did I say that? NO But lets just let absent parent off without helping to support his/her children--- Two different topics. Sure, both parents SHOULD be involved in their children's lives. But, if that isn't happening, "sitting around waiting" is not going to fix things. No matter what SHOULD be happening, the parent with the child MUST do what needs to be done, because "sitting around waiting" is not a viable option. again you took sitting around waiting too literrally.... Women can't take children on outings? of course they can.... So is Baby's mom taking him to the park, ball games, etc, like the other kids' fathers are? Instead of sitting around waiting for dad to do so? do you always take things so literally? Yes mom does such things and more with the child but dad doesnt....the point is Child Support cut out of picture--pretend it doesnt even exist in monetary form--why doesnt Dad (in this case) bother to 'spend time' with the child....yes mom spends time--why doesnt dad? Sure mom can and does do these things, but wouldnt it be nice to have dad there too? Yes it would, but dad doesnt WANT to be there.... Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping? You just read too much into what I was saying---children need both parents -- wether they are together or seperated...absent parents dont have to spend time with children is what you see, to say. Yes, they certainly need both parents. They need both parents fully involved in their day to day lives--not one as the real parent, and the other as a paying visitor. But sometimes that just doesn't happen. And sitting around waiting isn't going to make it happen. again taken too literrally--you make it sound as if Mom is sitting on the couch watching out the window every day for Dad to appear....that isnt the case--- Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are painting a very grim picture of women here. No I am not, you are by reading more into this than there is. I never said any of those things. The presence of dad may have helped the issues. I never even thought those things. You are the one painting the bad picture for women....or any custodial parent out there. Let's see--Dad doesn't visit regularly, kid ends up in psychiatric hospital, Dad may have helped had he been there. Sure dad may have helped....had he been there from the beginning and had an influence on the child maybe things wouldve been different, maybe not. But when the problems started coming up dad couldve helped by being there MORALLY EMOTIONALLY (phone calls maybe?) Ya know, when Mom called Dad to tell him child was in hospital Dad's mom hung up the phone saying 'sucks to be him' .... about a 6 year old kid?!?! Her own blood...Now you tell me that something wasn't going on in Dad's household to make him not bother. Oh thats right, alot of you reading this think Mom is to blame...Sorry I forgot. Women are stuck with sitting around waiting for dad to do the right thing. how about alot of Custodial Parents are wondering wether or not the Non Custodial Parent will ever do the right thing (earlier referred to as sitting around waiting).....I guess I must explain every statement I make because you are taking everything too darn literally. Hmmm... Sounds pretty grim to me. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... [snip] I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of the finances of their ex. I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half the time as in joint custody. It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the 80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial protocol. For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today. When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to pay a reasonable and just support. A far better way would be to continue to let parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$. All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their maritial status. IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents. That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged. This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area. Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance without his approval. Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to cooperation and the statistics bear this out. Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of the child's life on his/her own. Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it is. When a father is granted visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing rules on which he has no input or control. Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the right to talk about it and make the final decision. You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody, then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible. Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or "resident parent". Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose state guidelines anyway. You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you? God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge. Phil #3 |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"ME" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... [snip] I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of the finances of their ex. I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half the time as in joint custody. It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the 80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial protocol. For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today. When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to pay a reasonable and just support. A far better way would be to continue to let parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$. All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their maritial status. IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents. That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged. This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area. Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance without his approval. Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to cooperation and the statistics bear this out. Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of the child's life on his/her own. Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it is. When a father is granted visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing rules on which he has no input or control. Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the right to talk about it and make the final decision. You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody, then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible. Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or "resident parent". Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose state guidelines anyway. You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you? God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge. Phil #3 |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... [snip] I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of the finances of their ex. I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half the time as in joint custody. It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the 80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial protocol. For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today. When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to pay a reasonable and just support. A far better way would be to continue to let parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$. All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their maritial status. IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents. That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged. This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area. Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance without his approval. Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to cooperation and the statistics bear this out. Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of the child's life on his/her own. Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it is. When a father is granted visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing rules on which he has no input or control. Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the right to talk about it and make the final decision. You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody, then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible. Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or "resident parent". Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose state guidelines anyway. You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you? God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge. Phil #3 Through this whole discussion I think I came up with one thing for sure.... Things are different where I live than where you live---and yes I am in the US. Here judges don't over rule any agreement unless it were to be an extreme case. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... "ME" wrote in message ... "Phil #3" wrote in message link.net... [snip] I disagree with your basic premise that the CP has a "right" to a portion of the finances of their ex. I say that in the event of a seperated couple for whatever reason doesnt have joint custody whree they could supply jointly for the childs needs in there individual homes. Some NCP simply do not want custody. So if NCP has no desire to have custody then they cant provide thethings the child needs when they are with NCP half the time...because they arent with them half the time as in joint custody. It is true that there are some NCPs who do not want custody as well as some CPs who do not, however there seems to be a limit to even allowing the thought to progress through court as the ratio seems to stay within the 80-90% mother CPs with sole-custody, regardless the district. This phenomonon is based in the fact that mother is usually the one to file for divorce, and custody, and given primary consideration due to the adversarial protocol. For those instances where one parent is either unwilling, unable or unqualified (which is difficult to judge) to share custody, there would have to be some form of cash payment set up to assist in proper rearing of the children. Even then, the costs should be more aligned with actual expenses instead of the fanatical and unbelieveable guidelines in place today. When either parent moves far enough away from the marital home to cause the shared custody not to work, they should do so with the knowledge that they become the "absent-parent" through their own choosing and are encumbered to pay a reasonable and just support. A far better way would be to continue to let parents *be* parents AND to let ALL parents support their children as they see fit, as long as the children are not deprived. Only after it has become obvious and demonstrative that a parent will not properly support their children should the state have anything at all to do with divorce and C$. All parents should be treated exactly the same way, regardless their maritial status. IOW, parents share custody and purchase what the children need when with that parent; Items of greater cost can be shared between the parents. That is a great idea, too bad it isnt done more. Considering both parties live in the same school district, one has child from sunday at 6 to the following sunday at 6...equal time together, both providing for the child(ren) while in their custody, and as you said splitting the cost of larger cost items. Perfect idea...do we see it ? Not often. My ex hubby did that at one point until his childs mother moved to a different school district then they had to make other arrangements. (In the end it ended up in the court systems anyway) But it was great while it lasted. Great for the child, and for both parents. Equal time spent, no money exchanged. This seems to be the normal procedu mother decides she can do without the husband but not his money therefore she divorces but instills the courts indulgence to force "child support" as a means of continuing to live in the same, or at least better than she can directly afford, standard of living without raising her own income. Quite often she will move back to "home" to be near her family or she meets her next ex-husband and moves to his area. Either way is out of the hands of the father who is held as irresponsible when he can't visit the children who were removed by law and distance without his approval. Forcing a parent out of their children's lives and then forcing them to give money to their ex that does not benefit the children is not conductive to cooperation and the statistics bear this out. Not all NCP are forced out of the child's life though...some NCP walk out of the child's life on his/her own. Yes, as do mothers... However, it should NEVER be forced, but frequently, it is. When a father is granted visitation, he is more likely to pay the extortion; when he is granted no visitation at all, he is less likely to play the game according to changing rules on which he has no input or control. Although we do go through court systems most time here for CS, NCP does have input...IT is figured out by income and expenses...time spent with the child by NCP ona weekly basis (figuring that NCP would be providing for this time period and therefore doesnt have to pay support for this time period). All couples are given the chance to agree on a support amount and then the courts say nothing about it. Only if they cant agree is it taken further by looking at everything to figure an amount, and even then they still have the right to talk about it and make the final decision. You stated it about right in that the input of the father is usually limited to how much does he make. Some guidelines do not note a difference in how much time the children are with the NCP unless it approaches shared custody, then there is usually a break of some kind but rarely, if ever, sensible. Sometimes, there is no difference unless he is named the custodial or "resident parent". Sometimes, judges will throw out any agreement between parents and impose state guidelines anyway. You know the difference between God and a judge, don't you? God doesn't pretend that he is a district court judge. Phil #3 Through this whole discussion I think I came up with one thing for sure.... Things are different where I live than where you live---and yes I am in the US. Here judges don't over rule any agreement unless it were to be an extreme case. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. Agreed. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. However, the basic point remains. This is yet another way of giving reproductive choices to women. Meantime, no one considers ways of giving post-conception reproductive choices to men. Agreed. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women
"Carry On" wrote in message ... On 22 Dec 2003 17:54:33 GMT, (Kathi Kelly) wrote: "Kenneth S." writes: In the interests of clarity, I should point out that this is not RU-486. It is a product known as an "emergency contraceptive," and is -- on my understanding -- a pepped-up dose of the ingredients of the birth control pill. It is not an abortion-inducing product. Oops, my mistake. Apologies. You were not mistaken. It is an early pregnancy abortion-inducing agent. All of the articles I've seen refer to it in exactly that manner and I have seen nothing that suggests its a contraceptive of any kind since its intended use is for _after_ contraception has taken place, not prior to or to prevent fertilization of an egg. While RU 486 is comprised of female hormones that has no bearing on its function or intended use. The intent of taking the RU 486 pill is to abort a fertilized embryo prior to its implantation in the uterus. No one here disputes RU-486 (Mifepristone) creates non-surgical abortions. It is a drug that is taken after a pregnancy has occured to cause the woman to abort the fetus. This discussion has been about Plan B (Levonorgestrel) which is an emergency contraceptive to be taken after unprotected sex to prevent a pregnancy from occuring and it works much like some birth control pills. While both are commonly referred to as morning after pills, they are not the same. Plan B must be taken within the first 72 hours after unprotected sex to have a chance to be successful. Because it creates a hostile environment in a woman's uterus the woman will either lose the fertilized egg or have a tubal pregnancy. If Plan B does not work, then a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant can use RU-486. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|