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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 05:50 PM |
| Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests | Kane | Spanking | 2 | January 2nd 04 06:27 PM |
Judges presume fit parents act in child's best interests | Fern5827 | Spanking | 0 | January 2nd 04 02:57 PM |