Let's try this again..

Cameron Stevens wrote:

From my perspective the default access agreement should be 50/50 shared. No
support either way. The children should not be moved from their community
(school) without significant cause so that 50/50 parenting is viable.
Minimizing the impact on the children is critical. If 50/50 isn't possible,
the support amount should not be tied directly to the NCPs income, but
rather to the Foster Care rate.

This makes a lot of sense.

Here's the problem (I'm dealing with it right now):

Mom and Dad split, go with 50/50 joint physical and legal custody.

Mom throws in the towel, quits work, gets on Welfare.

Welfare is required to give Mom enough money to operate a household at
minimum capacity. It doesn't matter if she has the child 100% of the
time, 70% of the time, 50% of the time, 30% of the time, or 10% of the
time. She goes to Welfare, Welfare gives her the same amount of money
regardless of time spent with the child.

Welfare money doesn't just bubble up out of the ground. It comes from
taxpayers, and taxpayers put pressure on the state to minimize the burden
they bear. Plus, the state wants to have funds to do other stuff.

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

They will demand the full amount of CS as if the Mom had full custody,
because that way they get the full amount back. And in a way they have a
point -- they are giving Mom all of that money to maintain a house, they
can't get out of that responsibility (no matter how "unfair" it is), so
why should he?

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

- Ron ^*^

Cameron Stevens wrote:

From my perspective the default access agreement should be 50/50 shared. No
support either way. The children should not be moved from their community
(school) without significant cause so that 50/50 parenting is viable.
Minimizing the impact on the children is critical. If 50/50 isn't possible,
the support amount should not be tied directly to the NCPs income, but
rather to the Foster Care rate.

This makes a lot of sense.

Here's the problem (I'm dealing with it right now):

Mom and Dad split, go with 50/50 joint physical and legal custody.

Mom throws in the towel, quits work, gets on Welfare.

Welfare is required to give Mom enough money to operate a household at
minimum capacity. It doesn't matter if she has the child 100% of the
time, 70% of the time, 50% of the time, 30% of the time, or 10% of the
time. She goes to Welfare, Welfare gives her the same amount of money
regardless of time spent with the child.

Welfare money doesn't just bubble up out of the ground. It comes from
taxpayers, and taxpayers put pressure on the state to minimize the burden
they bear. Plus, the state wants to have funds to do other stuff.

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

They will demand the full amount of CS as if the Mom had full custody,
because that way they get the full amount back. And in a way they have a
point -- they are giving Mom all of that money to maintain a house, they
can't get out of that responsibility (no matter how "unfair" it is), so
why should he?

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

- Ron ^*^

Cameron Stevens wrote:

From my perspective the default access agreement should be 50/50 shared. No
support either way. The children should not be moved from their community
(school) without significant cause so that 50/50 parenting is viable.
Minimizing the impact on the children is critical. If 50/50 isn't possible,
the support amount should not be tied directly to the NCPs income, but
rather to the Foster Care rate.

This makes a lot of sense.

Here's the problem (I'm dealing with it right now):

Mom and Dad split, go with 50/50 joint physical and legal custody.

Mom throws in the towel, quits work, gets on Welfare.

Welfare is required to give Mom enough money to operate a household at
minimum capacity. It doesn't matter if she has the child 100% of the
time, 70% of the time, 50% of the time, 30% of the time, or 10% of the
time. She goes to Welfare, Welfare gives her the same amount of money
regardless of time spent with the child.

Welfare money doesn't just bubble up out of the ground. It comes from
taxpayers, and taxpayers put pressure on the state to minimize the burden
they bear. Plus, the state wants to have funds to do other stuff.

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

They will demand the full amount of CS as if the Mom had full custody,
because that way they get the full amount back. And in a way they have a
point -- they are giving Mom all of that money to maintain a house, they
can't get out of that responsibility (no matter how "unfair" it is), so
why should he?

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

- Ron ^*^

"Werebat" wrote in message ...

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

This is a real problem. It seems the state/government has a hard time
ensuring people work so rather than fix that problem, throw it back to the
father. This is very 1950's thinking. Of course back then (and earlier) the
mother was not expected to work in most families. So, at that time, this
would make some sense. The laws need updating.

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

Any woman (er, parent) who cannot hold a job should not be caring for a
child. Hmmm. That seems to be the only option. She's lose custody entirely
(except for visitation?) until she was back on her feet. No CS from here
because she's no earning any non-state money and even access to the children
becomes incentive to return to being a contibuting member of society.

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

Mostly, but enough to matter.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

Let them **** and moan. Women who see other women, regardless of deed or
worth as saits need psychotherapy, not an open ear.

You're right on the money Ron.

Cameron

"Werebat" wrote in message ...

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

This is a real problem. It seems the state/government has a hard time
ensuring people work so rather than fix that problem, throw it back to the
father. This is very 1950's thinking. Of course back then (and earlier) the
mother was not expected to work in most families. So, at that time, this
would make some sense. The laws need updating.

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

Any woman (er, parent) who cannot hold a job should not be caring for a
child. Hmmm. That seems to be the only option. She's lose custody entirely
(except for visitation?) until she was back on her feet. No CS from here
because she's no earning any non-state money and even access to the children
becomes incentive to return to being a contibuting member of society.

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

Mostly, but enough to matter.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

Let them **** and moan. Women who see other women, regardless of deed or
worth as saits need psychotherapy, not an open ear.

You're right on the money Ron.

Cameron

"Werebat" wrote in message ...

The state devises a plan -- aha! We'll collect the child support money
that the father would be giving to the Welfare mother!

Now the state gets involved in deciding how much money the father owes
the mother (except it's really how much money the father owes THEM,
because they're the ones who get the money).

This is a real problem. It seems the state/government has a hard time
ensuring people work so rather than fix that problem, throw it back to the
father. This is very 1950's thinking. Of course back then (and earlier) the
mother was not expected to work in most families. So, at that time, this
would make some sense. The laws need updating.

What would also need to happen is for full custody to be granted to any
parent who is willing and able to take the child(ren) full-time, in the
event that the other parent proves themselves to be incapable of
providing for themselves and the children (i.e. applies for Welfare).

Any woman (er, parent) who cannot hold a job should not be caring for a
child. Hmmm. That seems to be the only option. She's lose custody entirely
(except for visitation?) until she was back on her feet. No CS from here
because she's no earning any non-state money and even access to the children
becomes incentive to return to being a contibuting member of society.

This would solve the states financial problems, too.

Mostly, but enough to matter.

The only problems I can see with it would be feminist groups ****ing and
moaning about kids being taken from their (lazy welfare whore) mothers,
and parents who really can't take care of themselves declining Welfare
because they were afraid of losing their kids (thereby exposing them to
subhuman conditions).

Let them **** and moan. Women who see other women, regardless of deed or
worth as saits need psychotherapy, not an open ear.

You're right on the money Ron.

Cameron