A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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

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

Serious Problem



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 5th 06, 11:34 AM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Serious Problem

"teachrmama" had the audacity to say in alt.child-
support:


"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you're saying that you think justice is being done in the family
court
system?

No, it isn't. But that IS the problem isn't it. Instead of
determining just outcomes the court is acting as a welfare agency and
advocate for women.


Exactly!


Actually the family court system----as it was set up in California and
likely elsewhere----is a system to keep taxpayers from having to pay for
someone else's kids.

It evolved over time to shaft the noncustodial parent, typically the man.

The most egregious example of that is maintaining separate court
proceedings on finanical support issues and on custody/visitation issues.
It is not asking too much for one family law judge to rule at the same
hearing on matters that are of major concern to both the custodial (money)
and noncustodial (visitation) parents.

The DA only gets involved when the custodial parent asks for public
assistance, as far as I know. Do you have information that the DA will
act as the lawyer for the mother (custodial) parent even when she's not
applying for (eligible) for welfare? What jurisdictions?



  #22  
Old February 5th 06, 07:32 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Serious Problem


"SMH" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" had the audacity to say in alt.child-
support:


"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you're saying that you think justice is being done in the family
court
system?

No, it isn't. But that IS the problem isn't it. Instead of
determining just outcomes the court is acting as a welfare agency and
advocate for women.


Exactly!


Actually the family court system----as it was set up in California and
likely elsewhere----is a system to keep taxpayers from having to pay for
someone else's kids.

It evolved over time to shaft the noncustodial parent, typically the man.

The most egregious example of that is maintaining separate court
proceedings on finanical support issues and on custody/visitation issues.
It is not asking too much for one family law judge to rule at the same
hearing on matters that are of major concern to both the custodial (money)
and noncustodial (visitation) parents.

The DA only gets involved when the custodial parent asks for public
assistance, as far as I know. Do you have information that the DA will
act as the lawyer for the mother (custodial) parent even when she's not
applying for (eligible) for welfare? What jurisdictions?


I don't. But, then, I didn't say that.


  #23  
Old February 5th 06, 08:02 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Serious Problem


"SMH" wrote in message
...
"teachrmama" had the audacity to say in alt.child-
support:


"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So you're saying that you think justice is being done in the family
court
system?

No, it isn't. But that IS the problem isn't it. Instead of
determining just outcomes the court is acting as a welfare agency and
advocate for women.


Exactly!


Actually the family court system----as it was set up in California and
likely elsewhere----is a system to keep taxpayers from having to pay for
someone else's kids.


While this is a common perception of the family court system, it is not
based in fact. I am assuming when you state the purpose of the CS system is
to keep taxpayers from having to pay for someone else's kids what you mean
is the CS system is designed to eliminate the TANF (welfare) expenses paid
as public benefits.

It really doesn't matter how you measure it - The TANF percentage of total
cases is really quite low. The Federal OCSE reports a caseload of 2.6
million current welfare cases out of a total of 15.9 million for FY 2004.
That means 16.4% of all CS cases are welfare related and 83.6% are
non-welfare. They also report $2.3 billion is owed for welfare cases out of
a total of $21.9 billion. That means 10.5% of CS dollars are for welfare
cases and 89.5% are for non-welfare cases.

If you are interested, you can look up your state-specific "box score" on
the Federal OCSE web site.


It evolved over time to shaft the noncustodial parent, typically the man.

The most egregious example of that is maintaining separate court
proceedings on finanical support issues and on custody/visitation issues.
It is not asking too much for one family law judge to rule at the same
hearing on matters that are of major concern to both the custodial (money)
and noncustodial (visitation) parents.


One judge can rule on both of these issues. The problem of separation of
these issues occurs when the state administrative process is used to modify
CS orders. The state administrative judges are limited by statute to only
handle CS modifications. that forces any other issues back tot the state
curcuit/superior court system.


The DA only gets involved when the custodial parent asks for public
assistance, as far as I know. Do you have information that the DA will
act as the lawyer for the mother (custodial) parent even when she's not
applying for (eligible) for welfare? What jurisdictions?



Here's how it works in my jurisdiction. The Assistant Attorney Generals
handle TANF cases and any cases where there is an arrearage of public money
still existing. The Deputy DA's handle non-TANF cases on a contractual
basis. In all cases these attorneys represent the state's interests and not
the mothers' interests. If you ask them they will tell you it is just a
coincidence the state's interests and the mothers' interests are so closely
aligned.


  #24  
Old February 6th 06, 02:24 PM posted to alt.child-support
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Serious Problem

Dream,
I support what SpiderHam77 said - I don't know about laws in the US,
but if you are concerned about paternity, I would suggest getting a DNA
test. Just be sure you want to do it first: ask youself, even if you're
not the biological father, would you love it any less? Would you want
any less for it even if you're not the dad?
I only say this because someone very close to me discovered with almost
certainty when his son was about 5 that he most probably wasn't the
biological father. He decided eventually against getting a DNA test -
as he said to me, "Cath, according to J, he's my son, I'm his dad,
that's all that matters".

I wish you well in this time of confusion,
Cathryn

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 January 18th 06 06:48 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 19th 05 06:36 AM
I need serious help w/ problem child Nolte009 General 28 January 11th 05 08:43 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 December 29th 04 06:26 AM
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 June 28th 04 07:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:28 PM.


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