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

Rant--The CP is Not the Judge



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 8th 03, 04:49 AM
Batch File
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms

Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS at
twice the rate men do.

Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother.


"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...


Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women

have
the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by

single
mothers. Duh.


Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more
opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be around
their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better
reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the

children
from mother abuse?


You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are
women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are

you
saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will

tell
you otherwise.

Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single
mother households are that way because the father up and left......

can
you
imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in

them?

The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70%

of
the time by deciding they want to leave.


Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend....

he
was abusive.

Sadly, women also believe they can
raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent
family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very

close
to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64% of


black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women they

can
raise children as effectively as single parents.


Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be
father or mother.

But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who are
raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as

more
fathers become the CP, how the stats might change.


Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders.


Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit
crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I am
going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always

get
the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I

don't
believe in posting stats that are misleading.

Bio-fathers commit under 7%
of child murders. The other 38% are committed by the mother's boyfriend

or
the child's step-father. Obviously, the most severe form of child abuse

is
committed by mothers or men they invite into their children's lives.



And as more fathers get full custody, we will see how those stats change
too. Abuse happens all over the board folks, by men/women/blacks/white/ect
ect ect.

I got an off-topic question that I will pop in here. Maybe this is a moral
dilema. I know someone, of course, who knows someone in this situation. It
is her sisters family, sister is married, they have 3 kids with them, 2 to

a
previous, one is their shared baby. Husband has been viewd hiting oldest

son
in the head, in the back, whatever. Does this person risk breaking ties

with
the family to report this?




  #12  
Old July 8th 03, 07:15 AM
gini52
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge


"Tracy" wrote in message
newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
"gini52" wrote in message
...
Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her parents,
sisters, etc. do not determine
family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your

case
to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures

(if
you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as

well
as
instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a

custody
change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him or
her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1

year
old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers were

in
every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a

custody
change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he did,
shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for

the
injuries or deaths of these children.



Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame on
him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case.

The
father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her
true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of the
doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine
standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act.

==
I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who
do know their kids are at risk.
(Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-)
==
==


  #13  
Old July 8th 03, 02:14 PM
Phil #3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


"Batch File" wrote in message
.com...
Thats an in correct assumption. Most ncps are men yet women default on CS

at
twice the rate men do.

Also, men are less likely to request CS from the NCP mother.


Don't forget, men are less likely to request sole custody as well.

Phil #3

[snip]


  #14  
Old July 8th 03, 03:47 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...


Could be the reason it is that way (the abuse) is because more women

have
the kids, not the fathers. So of course there will be more abuse by

single
mothers. Duh.

Exactly. Mothers are around the children more so they get more
opportunities to beat up the kids. Therefore, mothers should be

around
their children less and the amount of abuse will go down. What better
reason to reduce the 85% mother primary custody rate to protect the

children
from mother abuse?


You miss my point. You NCP's rant about the large percentage of CP's are
women. So oviously the stats for abuse will be higher for the women. Are

you
saying men don't abuse kids.... because I know alot of adults who will

tell
you otherwise.


Men abuse kids. The men who abuse kids are most frequently the men women
invite into their children's lives. The bad choices women make in men are
highly repsonsible for male child abuser statistics. It is rarely the
bio-father who abuses his own children. The mother's boyfriend is the

most
likely male abuser followed by a step-father. Bio-fathers are way down

the
list of child abusers.


Could be part of the reason that so many kids from single
mother households are that way because the father up and left......

can
you
imagine what it does to a child when one parent isn't interested in

them?

The statistics show women initiate the breakup of the relationship 70%

of
the time by deciding they want to leave.


Regardless who initiates..... I initiated a breakup with a boyfriend....

he
was abusive.


Was that abuse child abuse or spousal abuse? I thought this thread was
about child abuse.


Sorry, we were discusing child abuse. BUT I stated that in reply to your
comment that women initiate breakups 70% of the time. Why do so many women
initiate the breakups? (No I don't think its all the males fault.)


Sadly, women also believe they can
raise their children as effectively as a single parent as a two parent
family can raise them. and this latter statistic tracts by race very

close
to the single parent households. As examples 38% of white women, 64%

of
black women, 61% of hispanic women, and 58% of indian/Alaskan women

they
can
raise children as effectively as single parents.


Well, I agree that is wrong. It takes 2 parents. Not one... wether it be
father or mother.


Fathers actually recognize the value of two parent households more than
mothers. 26% of men think they can raise a child without a woman's help
versus 42% of women.


Some women have had no choice. (As the same goes with men)


But you know, I have been meeting more and more single fathers who

are
raising the kids, sometimes totally on their own. So we will see, as

more
fathers become the CP, how the stats might change.

Mothers currently commit 55% of child murders.


Well, there is some equality.


Because more mothers have their kids. Its hard for bio-fathers to commit
crimes to the kids when they are not around. Now don't twist this.... I

am
going on the stats that are ALWAYS being posted here that mothers always

get
the kids. I am NOT saying that is right. I beleive in equal custody. I

don't
believe in posting stats that are misleading.


Okay, let's forget the stats. Fathers have psychological advantages they
bring to parenting. Fathers teach children how to keep their emotions

under
control in crisis situations. Fathers teach ego strength to conduct
self-evaluation. Fathers show children alternative ways to express anger
without grudges. Fathers teach responsibilty. Fathers show how they can

be
flexible to changes and shifting priorities. Fathers are more stable
emotionally because testosterone has been proven to be the calming hormone
rather than a cause of aggression.





All that is a big generalization. Not all males are as stated above. But as
I said, I beleive in balance. A child should be raised by 2 parents, and I
personally prefer the male/female idea. lol

T


  #15  
Old July 8th 03, 06:26 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge


"Tracy" wrote in message
newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...


Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the
color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what

color
her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns. "Naomi"
could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children -

yes,
they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone...

but
who knows the full story.


Here's a detailed story from the local press.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html

The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a black
woman. Also from the story:

Gaines told police that she felt like people on the bridge were staring at
her and that someone whom she bumped into with the stroller reacted rudely.
She said she "would rather be dead than live in a place where I'm not free
to walk around, I'm not free to be who I am, I'm not free to see other moms
out, single black moms with their kids, enjoying their kids."

And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father figures
were involved:

Jones (a mutual friend of the mother and father) said that he is a former
roommate of Allah's (the children's father) and that the two men often cared
for Supreme Knowledge and Sincere Understanding.

"They were like my little nephews," Jones said. "This is hard."





  #16  
Old July 9th 03, 12:42 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge

"gini52" wrote in message
...

"Tracy" wrote in message
newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...
"gini52" wrote in message
...
Just a reminder to all NCPs--Your child's custodial mother, her

parents,
sisters, etc. do not determine
family law matters. *Do not let them intimidate you.* These issues are
resolved by a court. You do not need your ex's permission to take your

case
to court. You need the filing fee and the proper forms and procedures

(if
you do not have an atty.) Many states now have these forms online as

well
as
instructions on how to file them. Granted, it is not easy to get a

custody
change, but if you have a child in danger or at risk, you have a
responsibility to that child to try every possible avenue to help him

or
her. I'm sure most of you have heard about the mother who threw her 1

year
old twins off a Mississippi River bridge and then jumped in herself
intending murder/suicide. The public needs to ask where the fathers

were
in
every one of these cases and whether the father attempted to get a

custody
change prior to the violent acts. If he didn't, shame on him; if he

did,
shame on the courts and states and they should be held accountable for

the
injuries or deaths of these children.



Gini - I agree with what you are saying, but I don't agree with "shame

on
him" for not trying. We don't know the full details of this case.

The
father may have felt he didn't stand a chance, and wasn't "aware" of her
true mental problems. I would like to give the father the benefit of

the
doubt and question why. What she did was sick... I couldn't imagine
standing there witnessing *anyone* doing such a horrifying act.

==
I wasn't speaking of this particular case but fathers in general who
do know their kids are at risk.
(Out a little late tonight weren't you? ;-)



Not last night. I was just up late talking on the phone. We were talking
about this weekend. ;-)


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #17  
Old July 9th 03, 12:50 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Tracy" wrote in message
newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...


Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning the
color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what

color
her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns.

"Naomi"
could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the children -

yes,
they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with someone...

but
who knows the full story.


Here's a detailed story from the local press.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html

The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a

black
woman. Also from the story:


Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I
believe it stated she was working as an artist.


And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father

figures
were involved:


What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are
referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made such
a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt.

I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on people.
I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this
mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced individuals
which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly racist
names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my
tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the
color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then
why even mention the color of her skin?

As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just
sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she was
probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many men
in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not* defend
this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting...


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #18  
Old July 9th 03, 01:18 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


"frazil" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...


==
Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications are

based
on
"change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental

condition
and/or lifestyle
has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These

changes
are
rarely easy and
shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of

the
judge, he/she should be compelled
to act.


So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been

married,
quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had

three
children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and

has
never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove

"change
of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far

worse
occurs in her life like a felony conviction?

Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug pusher

who
is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated, gets
tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood. How

can
a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his word
against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an

issue
unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What if

the
first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and a
lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove a
"changes of circumstances"?


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.


And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would you
grant the drug test?



I don't know whether there has been a recent
increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is happening

*a
lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is *not*
default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both

parents
as
well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is

carrying
the
entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."


Mothers have always been more violent against their children than

fathers.
But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed households

are
far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school,

create
teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't act

on
these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they

don't
fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
parents.


The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the individual.
Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men

from
entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning
banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on
interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than others,
but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a
rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north.


That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind
of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the basis
for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear
using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of
profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are
statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of
protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government
programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying
problem areas.



Otherwise, let the
accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to

protect
these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is

one
that
is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge

*will*
listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can

accomodate
excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on

these
kids
at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
==
==


Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As

long
as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
mistakes.


No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the
beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal
prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are
protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and are,
held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held

accountable
to you just because you don't like the decision they made.


I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within
the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private citizens
have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most
instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in government
are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to
acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse to
accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses
suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is available
is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws by
the government.

What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the
states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the cities,
and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services
because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to
shift tax dollars around.


  #19  
Old July 9th 03, 02:13 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default News stories - was: Rant--The CP is Not the Judge


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:1NIOa.11319$Ph3.1406@sccrnsc04...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news

"Tracy" wrote in message
newsatOa.5014$H17.3233@sccrnsc02...


Bob - I'm not sure where you are coming up with comments concerning

the
color of the mother's skin... but really now. It doesn't matter what

color
her skin is. What happen is wrong, and it should raise concerns.

"Naomi"
could be a female from any race. As far as the names of the

children -
yes,
they are very uncommon and should have raised questions with

someone...
but
who knows the full story.


Here's a detailed story from the local press.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/3975020.html

The picture accompanying the article clearly shows Naomi/Pleasant is a

black
woman. Also from the story:


Did the picture tell you she was on welfare, or did you read the story? I
believe it stated she was working as an artist.


I saw a Reuters, Fox, AP, and this local story on the Internet news sources
I read. One of them said she was on welfare. The one I linked to said she
had been under court order not to use drugs and alcohol and had sever mental
illness issues causing her children to be removed from her multiple times.
Her employment was as a singer for some kind of music group and continuing
that role was shaky based on the band's manager quoted in the story.



And finally to counter the erroneous assumption no fathers or father

figures
were involved:


What erroneous assumption? Who said the father wasn't around? If you are
referring to *me* step back and read what I typed again. I never made

such
a claim. I said to give the father the benefit of the doubt.


Sorry for any mix up. I followed your lead and responded to several posters
in the same response. someone suggested in cases like this one the
whereabouts of the father should be a major question to be asked. I was
just posting the father had been involved on an ongoing basis.


I was just curious as to where you come up with your information on

people.
I really would hate to think you were basing your assumptions about this
mother based on the color of her skin. I know some mixed raced

individuals
which are lighter than I am right now. I was called some really ugly

racist
names while growing up due to the color of my skin (when tanned) and my
tight natural curly dark brown hair. Let's not judge someone based on the
color of their skin... oh, and if it wasn't such an issue with you - then
why even mention the color of her skin?


What I originally posted was this woman said she went to the festival
looking for other black, single mothers enjoying their children. The only
reference to her skin color came from a quote attributed directly from her
comments to investigators.


As far as my opinion - the woman had major issues. What she did was just
sick. How well she hid her mental problems could be debated... but she

was
probably in better mental shape than Mrs. Yates, and I remember how many

men
in this group defended Mr Yates. So I'm surprised to see some *not*

defend
this father, but defend Mr Yates. Interesting...


I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yates was accused of allowing his
wife to have ongoing contact with their children. In this case the mother
was under supervision of the court for drug and alcohol abuse treatment, had
her children removed by the state, etc. but the state kept giving her
children back to her. Obviously the state knew she was not stable before
the crime, not after the crime as in the Yates case.


  #20  
Old July 9th 03, 03:14 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.


And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right

to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass

her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would

you
grant the drug test?



Yes - I'd order one on both.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



 




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
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary wexwimpy Foster Parents 2 August 6th 04 09:20 PM
DCF wrkrs & perjury Judge writes DCF wrong. U trust them? Fern5827 Spanking 0 August 6th 04 03:04 PM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane General 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane Spanking 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane Foster Parents 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32 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.