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

In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 28th 07, 12:23 AM posted to alt.child-support
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited

While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made… and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs… not just physical needs


Beverly
  #2  
Old March 28th 07, 01:09 AM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Beverly" wrote
While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made. and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs. not just physical needs

==
Excellent post, Beverly. The legislators need to hear it--every day, if need
be.
It is a tragic system.


  #3  
Old March 28th 07, 03:33 AM posted to alt.child-support
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Gini" wrote in

Excellent post, Beverly. The legislators need to hear it--every day, if
need be.
It is a tragic system.



So where do we begin?


  #4  
Old March 28th 07, 03:44 AM posted to alt.child-support
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 981
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Beverly" wrote in message
...
While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made. and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs. not just physical needs


Good post Beverly.

One of the many flaws in the family law system is the lack of objective
application of the "best interests" standard in child custody decisions. If
custody were to be based on the children's needs with the outcomes measured
(as Beverly suggests) the judicial approach to custody would change
abruptly.

Without any clear findings or guidelines as to what "best interest" means,
judges make custody decisions based on their own value judgements and
experiences. If judges were to recognize their disguised maternal
preference custody decisions were really harming some children they might
change.

I have seen judges on TV challenged about how often they award custody to
mothers, and every one of them has ignored the fact they do that 85-100% of
the time, and weaseled out of the challenge by claiming they award fathers
custody too.

The most important emotional behaviors promoting a child's development and
adjustment are ignored. Things like the psychological adjustment of the
primary parent, which is a critical factor post-divorce or for out of
wedlock children, is never considered. If this single factor were to be
considered, custody of children could be changed based on parental behavior
in areas like addictions, abusive relationships, welfare dependence, abuse
and neglect, and general lack of parenting skills.


  #5  
Old March 28th 07, 08:38 AM posted to alt.child-support
DB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 712
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in

One of the many flaws in the family law system is the lack of objective
application of the "best interests" standard in child custody decisions.


They only use "Best Interest" as a license and mantra to bleed the NCP's
dry!


  #6  
Old March 28th 07, 01:59 PM posted to alt.child-support
Beverly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:33:02 GMT, "DB" wrote:


"Gini" wrote in

Excellent post, Beverly. The legislators need to hear it--every day, if
need be.
It is a tragic system.



So where do we begin?


I think one of our major flaws in getting laws changed is in the use
of logic, believe it or not. Our arguments ARE logical, but most
voters are most concerned with the emotional aspect of this debate.
They think of children living in poverty if we don't "make the fathers
pay." What they fail to recognize is that the system PROMOTES
poverty. Yes, I believe it does.

How about a system that promotes responsibility? I propose that
families with children NOT be eligible for welfare if there is a
parent who can and is willing to take the children and care for them
directly. Children should always be in the care of someone who is
willing to show them a good work ethic.

And I'm sorry if I harp on welfare so much, but I can't get over
something I heard years ago. There was a 16 year old girl living in
the projects with her mother who was trying to get pregnant. I asked
her why and her reply to me was so that she could get an income and
her own place. Children who grow up with a parent who supports them
without working (welfare, child support) THINK that this is how it is
done. More babies are born into a planned poverty situation. If this
girl had come from an environment where the parent was working, even
if poor, perhaps the parent would have counseled her to go to college
and wait to have children to avoid the struggle.

And I can't believe that there isn't one person who hasn't experienced
dealing with a young adult who is from what I call "the entitlement
generation." You know who these people are... they may have a job,
but they believe they should be paid simply for being a warm body in
the building. Why do you think this is? Could it be that money
flowed too easily to a parent who did not work hard? Perhaps.

At any rate, we need to propose a bill that calls for personal
responsibility by using logic AND emotion. And the emotion should not
be about what is happening to the fathers as MUCH as what is happening
to the children. Face it... America is not ready to see a man as the
victim even if they are. I once had a friend who was arrested for
domestic violence after his wife beat the crap out of him BECAUSE we
are not ready to see a man as a victim.


Beverly
  #7  
Old March 28th 07, 04:22 PM posted to alt.child-support
Gini
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 936
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Beverly" wrote
.....................
At any rate, we need to propose a bill that calls for personal
responsibility by using logic AND emotion. And the emotion should not
be about what is happening to the fathers as MUCH as what is happening
to the children. Face it... America is not ready to see a man as the
victim even if they are. I once had a friend who was arrested for
domestic violence after his wife beat the crap out of him BECAUSE we
are not ready to see a man as a victim.

==
The idea that women are victims and men are victimizers is fairly well
entrenched in our society and
it will be a long road to change that perception. On top of this is the fact
that *men* see themselves
as inferior to women. Case in point: The nutrisystem commercial where the
man says that his wife doesn't
think he's nearly as disgusting as he used to be. Let's try that statement
coming from a woman and see how
that goes over. Or, how about the man who had his female co-worker's
blackberry and then shows him nursing
a head wound when she gets her blackberry back. How about we let him thump
her on the head. Now the kicker--
my husband thinks those ads are funny. What I think is funny--William
Shatner getting a cheaper room rate
because he sweet-talked the female receptionist and rubbed her hand. I'm
guessing the NOW types are trying hard to get that
one pulled.



  #8  
Old March 28th 07, 06:21 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Beverly" wrote in message
...
While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made. and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs. not just physical needs


Not to mention, handing free cash to the mother says absolutely NOTHING
about any child's physical needs, nothing!



Beverly



  #9  
Old March 28th 07, 06:34 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Beverly" wrote in message
...
While it is clearly understood that children need food, clothing,
shelter and medical treatment; and that this should be provided by the
parents if at all possible, we have created a system that neglects
less measurable, but as important, needs of the child. If we truly
want what is in the best interests of children, some changes need to
be made. and quickly.

First and foremost, a child should have regular contact with both
sides of the gene pool. It is unfortunate when one parent walks away,
but the detriment may outweigh the benefit if the parent who walks
away is forced. There are many things which cannot be duplicated in
nature and one of those is the exact combination of traits handed down
by combining a female's unique set and a male's unique set. Children
gain insight into themselves and their traits by knowing both
contributors. A person who denies contact with the other parent
without substantial cause may be robbing the child of fully developing
all the child has to offer. If the best interests of the child are
the goal, such thievery should never be tolerated.

Then there is the issue of outrageous child support awards. This can
actually have an adverse effect on children. Currently, the
government uses a standard based upon the percentage of income an
intact family may spend on a child. I suppose this is fine for intact
families. However, the government attempts to equalize a disparity of
incomes in two separate households and this is damaging to a child.
Why? Children need to be aware that choices adults make cause
difference. As long as the child has the essentials, it should not
only be acceptable but REQUIRED that children experience the
differences in their parent's households. They need to understand
that there is a different standard of living dependent upon choices.
A doctor's standard of living SHOULD be higher than that of a manager
of the local pizza parlor, for instance. What will drive our children
to want to achieve more if there is no difference? If the best
interests of the child are the goal, understanding the reality of
difference between choices is a lesson best learned young.

There is so much more about how the current system can harm children,
but the only thing that the government seems to know how to measure is
money. Some things may never be measurable, but are common sense. If
we are truly interested in the best interests of the child, perhaps we
ought to look at a child's total needs. not just physical needs


Good post Beverly.

One of the many flaws in the family law system is the lack of objective
application of the "best interests" standard in child custody decisions.

If
custody were to be based on the children's needs with the outcomes

measured
(as Beverly suggests) the judicial approach to custody would change
abruptly.

Without any clear findings or guidelines as to what "best interest" means,
judges make custody decisions based on their own value judgements and
experiences. If judges were to recognize their disguised maternal
preference custody decisions were really harming some children they might
change.

I have seen judges on TV challenged about how often they award custody to
mothers, and every one of them has ignored the fact they do that 85-100%

of
the time, and weaseled out of the challenge by claiming they award fathers
custody too.


I have YET to get an answer why a child needs to be denied a parent (father)
in the first place.
50/50 makes sense to me; or am I way out in left field?


The most important emotional behaviors promoting a child's development and
adjustment are ignored. Things like the psychological adjustment of the
primary parent, which is a critical factor post-divorce or for out of
wedlock children, is never considered. If this single factor were to be
considered, custody of children could be changed based on parental

behavior
in areas like addictions, abusive relationships, welfare dependence, abuse
and neglect, and general lack of parenting skills.




  #10  
Old March 28th 07, 06:39 PM posted to alt.child-support
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default In the Best Interests of the Children Revisited


"Beverly" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:33:02 GMT, "DB" wrote:


"Gini" wrote in

Excellent post, Beverly. The legislators need to hear it--every day, if
need be.
It is a tragic system.



So where do we begin?


I think one of our major flaws in getting laws changed is in the use
of logic, believe it or not. Our arguments ARE logical, but most
voters are most concerned with the emotional aspect of this debate.


Until the laws they voted for work against them. But then it's too late.

They think of children living in poverty if we don't "make the fathers
pay." What they fail to recognize is that the system PROMOTES
poverty. Yes, I believe it does.


And you would be correct.


How about a system that promotes responsibility? I propose that
families with children NOT be eligible for welfare if there is a
parent who can and is willing to take the children and care for them
directly. Children should always be in the care of someone who is
willing to show them a good work ethic.

And I'm sorry if I harp on welfare so much,


I'm not. Welfare is another one of the many government scum programs that
promotes the same.

but I can't get over
something I heard years ago. There was a 16 year old girl living in
the projects with her mother who was trying to get pregnant. I asked
her why and her reply to me was so that she could get an income and
her own place. Children who grow up with a parent who supports them
without working (welfare, child support) THINK that this is how it is
done. More babies are born into a planned poverty situation. If this
girl had come from an environment where the parent was working, even
if poor, perhaps the parent would have counseled her to go to college
and wait to have children to avoid the struggle.

And I can't believe that there isn't one person who hasn't experienced
dealing with a young adult who is from what I call "the entitlement
generation." You know who these people are... they may have a job,
but they believe they should be paid simply for being a warm body in
the building. Why do you think this is? Could it be that money
flowed too easily to a parent who did not work hard? Perhaps.


Strikingly close to home, I know a young woman who has applied for
government daycare. Although she lives with the father and they both work,
the reason why they did not get married is so that she can qualify for the
welfare. Sick reality, huh? They both work long hard hours but still have
trouble meeting the budget. I say keep the government's sticky hands out of
their paychecks so that they will have enough money to pay for their OWN
daycare!


At any rate, we need to propose a bill that calls for personal
responsibility by using logic AND emotion. And the emotion should not
be about what is happening to the fathers as MUCH as what is happening
to the children. Face it... America is not ready to see a man as the
victim even if they are. I once had a friend who was arrested for
domestic violence after his wife beat the crap out of him BECAUSE we
are not ready to see a man as a victim.


A freind and I watched a neighbor beat the heck out of her father. He was
disabled. Cops showed up, he had marks, she had none. And guess who went to
jail. I'm not surprised.



Beverly



 




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
Feuding special interests Greegor Spanking 0 October 10th 06 06:47 AM
Vaccine Dangers and Vested Interests john Kids Health 0 March 7th 06 06:50 PM
| Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests Kane Spanking 2 January 2nd 04 07:27 PM
Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests Fern5827 Spanking 0 January 2nd 04 03:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:02 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.