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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:48 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 19th 05 05:36 AM |
I need serious help w/ problem child | Nolte009 | General | 28 | January 11th 05 07:43 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Nursing Strikes | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | June 28th 04 07:42 PM |