Not paying child support is "child abuse", says Texas Attorney General

Apologies if this gets posted twice.,
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000347070781/

Not paying child support is "child abuse", says Texas Attorney General
Posted Dec 2, 2005, 7:03 PM ET by Jay Allen

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is campaigning to crack down on the
state's most wanted offenders who fail to pay child support - i.e., anyone
who owes over $5,000 and has a warrant out for his or her arrest. Abbott is
using some head-turning language, stating flatly that "Failure to pay child
support is a form of child abuse." Child abuse? I'm all for cracking down on
flagrant offenders who refuse to pay, but isn't it more abusive for parents
not to spend time with their children than it is not to fork over child
support?

I'm beginning to see the point of father's rights advocates: isn't it better
to provide at least some of these people incentive to remain in the lives of
their children? I'd love to see an AG who can manage to wipe the dollar
signs out of his eyes, and come up with a support enforcement plan that gets
noncustodial parents access to their kids. You have to wonder: how many
non-custodial parents would make up their arrears under such a system? Why
doesn't anyone have the guts to try it and find out?

Mind you, the parents who refuse to pay and don't give a damn about seeing
their children can kiss the business end of a wage garnishment, as far as
I'm concerned.

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

Offering "incentives" is only part of the problem here. When we look at the
divorce industry as a whole, we see that nearly every facet of divorce is
slanted to get the most money from the NCP. Period.

There are no "incentives" for NCP's to hang around and be nothing more then
whipping posts for radfems to abuse. Offering them a few scant hours or
days to play at being a parent to one's children is, IMO, abuse. Both to
the NCP and the children in question.

For these wing-nuts to suggest that this is sufficient to be a constructive
part of a child's life is absolute insanity. And to suggest that being
"Uncle Daddy" is all an NCP can ever look forward to, or worse yet a walking
wallet. Well, that would be enough to drive anyone away.

"Incentives" are not needed, scrapping the entire Divorce Industry is. We
need both parents with their children, not one to program them against the
NCP and the other to be an ATM. We need both parents to actually be
parents.

[begin dream sequence...]

God forbid if I ever were to become a family court judge.. Trust me, if you
come into my court room and start to talk trash (or your lawyer does) you
can expect to be placed under house arrest and sent to a "Family
Re-education" camp where you'll be taught how to behave when your X is
around and act like a parent to your kids.

And you can also forget those huge "guideline" C$ awards, too. If you both
have a job, good - forget having a share of the other's pie. Cause if you
come crying to me about wanting thousands of bucks a month, guess what YOUR
gonna be doing... Welcome to Family Camp!

And if you're the Peggy Bundy type (sits on their ass eating bon-bons and
spends all day watching Oprah (or drinking beer enjoying the likes of
WWF)).. If you want to see daylight again, you'll find away to get off your
fat ass real fast and getting a job.

And something else.. That B.S. about how your feelings where hurt when he
asked where the hell dinner was the other night and now you want a
restraining order to boot him out of the house he bought and paid for so you
can throw a Divorce Party tomorrow night... Welcome to Family Camp!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

Yeah, now that Texas will be getting less money from the Feds to enforce
child support
Greg Abbott is grasping for straws. Now he'll
have to make tough decisions, just like congress and beat-dead dads.
Now he'll have
to decide which bureaucrats to cut from the
dole. Texas has become such a socialist state
just like most if not all of the 50 states.

Congress and many American citizens are now
figuring out that child support enforcement that
eminates from the federal level is a very costly
measure with no end benefit.

Anytime the government forces taxes or morality down our throats, it is
doomed to
failure. Democrats and Republicans are
equally adept at passing new law and legislation in their attempt to
control the masses. However, the end result of their
efforts is usually tyranny, which in turn
brings revolt....Our government apparently
has forgotten events such as the "Boston
Tea Party" and the "Civil War".

I have considered for a long time that DIVORCE is a form of child abuse,
and by no means the least serious. I think the research into the results of
divorce upon children bears out this conclusion.

However, will we ever see a state attorney general, or anyone else in
the government establishment, say this? No, of course not!

Why? Because there are no repercussions for politicians who attack
heterosexual men as a group, such as those fathers who have to pay child
support. By contrast, anyone who questions any part of feminist
theology--such as no barriers to wives who want to divorce their husbands
(or free access to abortion)--immediately faces a cacophony of hysterical
criticism from a whole crowd of screaming feminist harpies. So even those
politicians who know very well that divorce produces devastating results for
children, and imposes enormous costs on the taxpayers, keep their mouths
shut about this aspect of the situation.


"Dusty" wrote in message
...
Apologies if this gets posted twice.,
--------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.bloggingbaby.com/entry/1234000347070781/

Not paying child support is "child abuse", says Texas Attorney General
Posted Dec 2, 2005, 7:03 PM ET by Jay Allen

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is campaigning to crack down on the
state's most wanted offenders who fail to pay child support - i.e., anyone
who owes over $5,000 and has a warrant out for his or her arrest. Abbott
is
using some head-turning language, stating flatly that "Failure to pay
child
support is a form of child abuse." Child abuse? I'm all for cracking down
on
flagrant offenders who refuse to pay, but isn't it more abusive for
parents
not to spend time with their children than it is not to fork over child
support?

I'm beginning to see the point of father's rights advocates: isn't it
better
to provide at least some of these people incentive to remain in the lives
of
their children? I'd love to see an AG who can manage to wipe the dollar
signs out of his eyes, and come up with a support enforcement plan that
gets
noncustodial parents access to their kids. You have to wonder: how many
non-custodial parents would make up their arrears under such a system? Why
doesn't anyone have the guts to try it and find out?

Mind you, the parents who refuse to pay and don't give a damn about seeing
their children can kiss the business end of a wage garnishment, as far as
I'm concerned.

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

Offering "incentives" is only part of the problem here. When we look at
the
divorce industry as a whole, we see that nearly every facet of divorce is
slanted to get the most money from the NCP. Period.

There are no "incentives" for NCP's to hang around and be nothing more
then
whipping posts for radfems to abuse. Offering them a few scant hours or
days to play at being a parent to one's children is, IMO, abuse. Both to
the NCP and the children in question.

For these wing-nuts to suggest that this is sufficient to be a
constructive
part of a child's life is absolute insanity. And to suggest that being
"Uncle Daddy" is all an NCP can ever look forward to, or worse yet a
walking
wallet. Well, that would be enough to drive anyone away.

"Incentives" are not needed, scrapping the entire Divorce Industry is. We
need both parents with their children, not one to program them against the
NCP and the other to be an ATM. We need both parents to actually be
parents.

[begin dream sequence...]

God forbid if I ever were to become a family court judge.. Trust me, if
you
come into my court room and start to talk trash (or your lawyer does) you
can expect to be placed under house arrest and sent to a "Family
Re-education" camp where you'll be taught how to behave when your X is
around and act like a parent to your kids.

And you can also forget those huge "guideline" C$ awards, too. If you
both
have a job, good - forget having a share of the other's pie. Cause if you
come crying to me about wanting thousands of bucks a month, guess what
YOUR
gonna be doing... Welcome to Family Camp!

And if you're the Peggy Bundy type (sits on their ass eating bon-bons and
spends all day watching Oprah (or drinking beer enjoying the likes of
WWF)).. If you want to see daylight again, you'll find away to get off
your
fat ass real fast and getting a job.

And something else.. That B.S. about how your feelings where hurt when he
asked where the hell dinner was the other night and now you want a
restraining order to boot him out of the house he bought and paid for so
you
can throw a Divorce Party tomorrow night... Welcome to Family Camp!!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberalism: that haunting fear that someone,
somewhere, can help themselves without
Government intervention.

I'm all for cracking down on flagrant offenders who refuse to pay,
but isn't it more abusive for parents not to spend time with their
children than it is not to fork over child support?

Moving on from your world of mythology to one of reality,
what about destitute and often incarcerated fathers and those
who successfully chase fathers away from their children?

Congress and many American citizens are now
figuring out that child support enforcement that
eminates from the federal level is a very costly
measure with no end benefit.

Not even close, this oppression grows stronger as this
news story illustrates. Show me the politician campaigning
on a visitation enforcement platform. As for cost, as with
other government vote buying schemes, it is born by the
deemed politically inferior, duh!

Why? Because there are no repercussions for politicians who attack
heterosexual men as a group, such as those fathers who have to pay child
support. By contrast, anyone who questions any part of feminist
theology--such as no barriers to wives who want to divorce their husbands
(or free access to abortion)--immediately faces a cacophony of hysterical
criticism from a whole crowd of screaming feminist harpies.

Well put but should more accurately read:

immediately faces a cacophony of hysterical criticism from the
mainstream media that politicians see as the lead that the
ignorant masses of voters will follow.

"abdd" wrote in

Moving on from your world of mythology to one of reality,
what about destitute and often incarcerated fathers and those
who successfully chase fathers away from their children?


What is really incredible is how an extremist movement was able to get these
draconian ideas passed into law!

Who would have ever imagined that in America, a male who is down on his luck
or just never got into the right ideal situation would be jailed for not
making enough money to feed and pay for his kids college education?

And now you have DA's jumping on the bandwagon to advance their political
careers!

The Automotive companies are downsizing and laying off thousands, the
spinoff from these layoffs and plant closings will affect millions! Who is
the Government going to blame for economic ruin when these fathers can no
longer afford to support the lifestyles these children are used to? Is
everyone in America Guaranteed a life style, is that the Government's new
job to enforce that life style? With the 50% divorce rate and declining
economy, how long will it be until the majority of the male population will
be under the direct control and supervision of a uncontrollable government
agency?

Why are we criminalizing a social issue?

"DB" wrote in message
. net...

"abdd" wrote in

Moving on from your world of mythology to one of reality,
what about destitute and often incarcerated fathers and those
who successfully chase fathers away from their children?


What is really incredible is how an extremist movement was able to get
these draconian ideas passed into law!

Who would have ever imagined that in America, a male who is down on his
luck or just never got into the right ideal situation would be jailed for
not making enough money to feed and pay for his kids college education?

And now you have DA's jumping on the bandwagon to advance their political
careers!

The Automotive companies are downsizing and laying off thousands, the
spinoff from these layoffs and plant closings will affect millions! Who is
the Government going to blame for economic ruin when these fathers can no
longer afford to support the lifestyles these children are used to? Is
everyone in America Guaranteed a life style, is that the Government's new
job to enforce that life style? With the 50% divorce rate and declining
economy, how long will it be until the majority of the male population
will be under the direct control and supervision of a uncontrollable
government agency?

Why are we criminalizing a social issue?

The complete answer to your last question has three elements, in my
view. The first element is that nonpayment of child support may have
implications for taxpayer-funded welfare programs. That is a legitimate
concern, but it has been hugely exaggerated, in order to cover up the other
two, crudely political elements. One of the other two elements is that the
victims of these Draconian enforcement measures are heterosexual men, who
have no political clout in matters where the interests of the sexes are in
conflict. The other element is that the recipients of "child support" are
adult women, whose interests invariably trump those of men and children
across a whole range of social issues--from abortion to welfare.

What is really incredible is how an extremist movement was able to get
these draconian ideas passed into law!

Not really. Hitler was elected, so was Saddam.

Who would have ever imagined that in America, a male who is down on his
luck or just never got into the right ideal situation would be jailed for
not making enough money to feed and pay for his kids college education?

Huh? Oh, you must mean be jailed for not giving enough money to a woman
who had sex with him.

And now you have DA's jumping on the bandwagon to advance their political
careers!

Why should judges be the only politicians jumping on bandwagons?


The Automotive companies are downsizing and laying off thousands, the
spinoff from these layoffs and plant closings will affect millions! Who is
the Government going to blame for economic ruin when these fathers can no
longer afford to support the lifestyles these children are used to?

Jailing poor fathers is akin to Uday torturing atheletes who lost a game
or SS jailers picking out Jews at random for summary execution. Taking
money from those of the politically inferior gender and giving it to
those of the politically preferred gender is only one aspect. Government
enforced oppression is a key aspect of maintaining this system. In this
regard, jailing fathers for not turning over money they do not have makes
good, albeit evil, sense.

Why are we criminalizing a social issue?

What social issue?

"abdd" wrote in message
...
What is really incredible is how an extremist movement was able to get
these draconian ideas passed into law!

Not really. Hitler was elected, so was Saddam.
===
And Dubya. Twice.
===

Who would have ever imagined that in America, a male who is down on his
luck
or just never got into the right ideal situation would be jailed for not
making enough money to feed and pay for his kids college education?

I understand your point. But what about the mother who was also laid off
but still has to figure out a way to take care of her child.


The Automotive companies are downsizing and laying off thousands, the
spinoff from these layoffs and plant closings will affect millions! Who is
the Government going to blame for economic ruin when these fathers can no
longer afford to support the lifestyles these children are used to?

Mothers are subject to the same lay offs. They still have to find a way to
take care of the kids. Maybe they should send the kids to the dad for a
while, just until they get back on their feet.

Is
everyone in America Guaranteed a life style, is that the Government's new
job to enforce that life style?

Any lifestyle is better than a shelter. Many women are subject to firing.
But if they can't feed their kids they go to jail for neglect.


With the 50% divorce rate and declining
economy, how long will it be until the majority of the male population
will
be under the direct control and supervision of a uncontrollable government
agency?

Don't blame the government. Find a work around. Your kids deserve it.

Lava

"Technopaganess" wrote in message
ink.net...
Who would have ever imagined that in America, a male who is down on his
luck
or just never got into the right ideal situation would be jailed for not
making enough money to feed and pay for his kids college education?

I understand your point. But what about the mother who was also laid off
but still has to figure out a way to take care of her child.


Sorry, there is no comparison!

Nobody is going to threaten the Mother with jail time of she doesn't have
the money to feed her kids.
She at least has plenty of options in terms of finding free food for the
kids, nobody starves to death in America.