next step

"jefe" wrote in message
...
what do you think? they would like to have there old lives back, of
course.
I do believe children are better off raised by a mother and a father. Yes
in most cases they can have there need met by just one. It happens all
the
time. So you don't see how there getting ripped off???Money is obviously
irrelevant. One parent can NEVER provide what two healthy parents can. My
point was to "bow out" parentally is wrong. If the law say you still must
provide, you should.

Why? If she is just getting back on her feet, as you imply, why would you
put her in a position of paying back child support? Do you think that will
bring her closer to the children? Or, perhaps, keep her from wanting to get
reinvolved? How about inviting her back into her children's lives, and
worry about the child support later.

Of course one parent can't provide what two can. But that doesn't seem to
be of great concern in the current system. The mother of my husband's
daughter has never worked a day in her life--needless to say, he pays more
to make up for her unbridled laziness. And the taxpayers pay a big chunk,
too, for the children that she just "can't remember" who fathered them.
There are many custodial parents out there not working, and living on their
ex's dime. Sp, if the system really believes that supporting one's children
is so important, why aren't they going after CPs who aren't bringing in
money, rather than just NCPs?



"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"jefe" wrote in message
...
You can't make someone be a mother. If the interest doesn't come from
within, it just isn't going be there. I guess it's more on principle.
You
just don't walk out of your own children's lives. It should be a crime.

"Unless your children are picking garbage out of a can for dinner, why
chase
their mother?
Raising them on your own? Pay for em. They are yours."

of course I will take of my children, not just because they are mine.
I
will do it with the money I earn and what they are owed. They have
been
ripped off enough

Oh, you're not making enough money to support them? That is, indeed,
sad.
But you seem to have managed for the last 3 years.

How do you see them as having been ripped off? They have a loving father
caring for them, don't they? You've provided for all their needs,
haven't
you?

Their mother, by your account, doesn't seem to have had her act together,
and has been, for whatever reason, out of their lives. Wouldn't it be
nice
if, somehow, she could become a part of their lives again? Whic do you
think is the worst "rip-off? Losing their mother? Or losing the money
she
should have provided? Which would they rather have? Their mother? Or
the
$$$$$?

In article , jefe says...

what do you think? they would like to have there old lives back, of course.
I do believe children are better off raised by a mother and a father. Yes
in most cases they can have there need met by just one. It happens all the
time. So you don't see how there getting ripped off???Money is obviously
irrelevant. One parent can NEVER provide what two healthy parents can. My
point was to "bow out" parentally is wrong. If the law say you still must
provide, you should.
---
And if the law says you should sit in the back of the bus?
---

Gini wrote:

In article , jefe says...

what do you think? they would like to have there old lives back, of course.
I do believe children are better off raised by a mother and a father. Yes
in most cases they can have there need met by just one. It happens all the
time. So you don't see how there getting ripped off???Money is obviously
irrelevant. One parent can NEVER provide what two healthy parents can. My
point was to "bow out" parentally is wrong. If the law say you still must
provide, you should.

---
And if the law says you should sit in the back of the bus?
---

"But that was *different*! THIS is for the CHILDREN!!!"

- Ron ^*^

Jefe,

I cannot believe those, in the string of responses here, that are
giving you grief for seeking that which is entitled to you for support
of your children.

I cannot help but think that if you were a woman posting here about
getting back support from the father, the din of this condemnation
regarding you seeking back support would be quite a bit less. Of this
I have little doubt.

If the state was doing their job, you wouldn't have to do
anything...they would be keeping tabs on her situation, and once that
situation warrented garnishment of wages - it would happen. The state
has designated a department for this very reason. They should simply
do their job...you are.

Jefe, from one single father to another - cudos to you my friend,
cudos to you.

Mark




On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:03 -0500, "jefe"
wrote:

I received full custody and a child support order about 3 years ago, but
never tried to collect.

Now the ex has got her act somewhat together and will be starting work soon
once she receive her degree.

She has made no attempt to be a mother again. So I think it's time for me
to get what is owed to the children. At least finacially. She has move out
of state also.

Any suggestions as to what is the first step? Anyone? Beside going back to
a lawyer. They seem to cost me $1000s and her nothing.

TIA

Jefe

"b8tovene" wrote in message
...
Jefe,

I cannot believe those, in the string of responses here, that are
giving you grief for seeking that which is entitled to you for support
of your children.

I cannot help but think that if you were a woman posting here about
getting back support from the father, the din of this condemnation
regarding you seeking back support would be quite a bit less. Of this
I have little doubt.

Actually, it would be quite a bit more din and condemnation - with the
additional condemnation that insists child support received isn't actually used
to support the child(ren).


If the state was doing their job, you wouldn't have to do
anything...they would be keeping tabs on her situation, and once that
situation warrented garnishment of wages - it would happen. The state
has designated a department for this very reason. They should simply
do their job...you are.

Jefe, from one single father to another - cudos to you my friend,
cudos to you.

Mark




On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:03 -0500, "jefe"
wrote:

I received full custody and a child support order about 3 years ago, but
never tried to collect.

Now the ex has got her act somewhat together and will be starting work soon
once she receive her degree.

She has made no attempt to be a mother again. So I think it's time for me
to get what is owed to the children. At least finacially. She has move out
of state also.

Any suggestions as to what is the first step? Anyone? Beside going back to
a lawyer. They seem to cost me $1000s and her nothing.

TIA

Jefe

I got the impression that the state wasn't much help because I wasn't on
"aid". I guess I have to start somewhere. Odd side note. I heard from her
this week. After taking off for a few years, she blames me because the
girls don't want to talk to her. Go figure.

Jefe

"b8tovene" wrote in message
...
Jefe,

I cannot believe those, in the string of responses here, that are
giving you grief for seeking that which is entitled to you for support
of your children.

I cannot help but think that if you were a woman posting here about
getting back support from the father, the din of this condemnation
regarding you seeking back support would be quite a bit less. Of this
I have little doubt.

If the state was doing their job, you wouldn't have to do
anything...they would be keeping tabs on her situation, and once that
situation warrented garnishment of wages - it would happen. The state
has designated a department for this very reason. They should simply
do their job...you are.

Jefe, from one single father to another - cudos to you my friend,
cudos to you.

Mark




On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 10:35:03 -0500, "jefe"
wrote:

I received full custody and a child support order about 3 years ago, but
never tried to collect.

Now the ex has got her act somewhat together and will be starting work
soon
once she receive her degree.

She has made no attempt to be a mother again. So I think it's time for
me
to get what is owed to the children. At least finacially. She has move
out
of state also.

Any suggestions as to what is the first step? Anyone? Beside going back
to
a lawyer. They seem to cost me $1000s and her nothing.

TIA

Jefe

"jefe" wrote in message
...
what do you think? they would like to have there old lives back, of
course.
I do believe children are better off raised by a mother and a father. Yes
in most cases they can have there need met by just one. It happens all
the
time. So you don't see how there getting ripped off???Money is obviously
irrelevant. One parent can NEVER provide what two healthy parents can. My
point was to "bow out" parentally is wrong. If the law say you still must
provide, you should.

Excuse me, but it isn't the kids who are being "ripped off". You being 100%
financially responsible for the kids means it is harder on you financially,
but it has nothing to do with your kids being ripped off. I'm speaking from
experience as I raised two boys into adulthood without any child-support
from their father, and currently I *am* helping to support two step-children
because their mother claims she is incapable of helping out financially. I
happen to agree with you 100% - you can't force her to be a mother to her
children. That is something I told my husband just last night. We (him and
I) should face the fact - we are on our own and won't have time to do
anything alone because his ex is not involved like she is supposed to be.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

"jAb" wrote in message
...
I got the impression that the state wasn't much help because I wasn't on
"aid". I guess I have to start somewhere. Odd side note. I heard from
her
this week. After taking off for a few years, she blames me because the
girls don't want to talk to her. Go figure.

Of course she is going to blaim you. She views herself as the victim and
that is part of the reason she doesn't act responsible to her own children.

Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/

"Tracy" wrote in
If the law say you still must provide, you should.

There were once laws banning the sale of Alcohol and also laws that said
your hand should be cut off for Stealing a loaf of bread.

What makes anyone think that trying to legislate the poverty problem will be
any different?

"G" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Tracy" wrote in
If the law say you still must provide, you should.

There were once laws banning the sale of Alcohol and also laws that said
your hand should be cut off for Stealing a loaf of bread.

What makes anyone think that trying to legislate the poverty problem will
be
any different?

I didn't write the statement you commented on. Aside from that small fact,
I would like to ask this question of you. Do you feel parents have a moral
obligation to support their children or should other people be supporting
them? I'm not defending the original statement, I'm just curious.


Thanks,
Tracy
~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/