Low Income Fathers, Child Support and Economic Oppression

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...


snip.


Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.

"Deadbeat dad who never sees his kids and dumps all the work on me" is
"deadbeat dad who never sees his kids and dumps all the work on me"

No, that's the label that some other person stuck on the man.

"Poor
longsuffering mother who has to do 100% of the parenting but never
brings
up her own case" is "poor longsuffering mother who has to do 100% of the
parenting but never brings up her own case."

No, that's another label that someone else has put out there.

Everything in HER world is
properly labeled. But what-the-heck, labels don't mean jack. Come on,
Phil, get with the program here!! chuckle

In my world, things are properly named, yes. I'm the mother. My ex is
the
father. Our salt is the salt.

Those are the common names for the nouns (person/place/thing) mentioned.

Are you able to tell the difference between a commonly accepted and used
name for something, versus a denigrating label hurled by someone else?

The two are NOT mutually exclusive. You did know this, right?



What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that
someone else might impose?

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message

ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP)
and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept
of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that
someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do anything.
HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?


Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition?
I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work.
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message

ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected
(starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected
or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents. The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is
the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability
from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered
by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent
(CP)
and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the
concept
of 50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other 50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are
YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato" or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at
least a little something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who
receives child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other
hand, some labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard
to
if they actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to
which I object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree
that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

Gee, I don't recall seeing a post where someone said that a label forced
behavior to match that label. I must say that I do skim posts
occasionally, though. Maybe you could direct me to the post wehere
someone actually said that being given a certain label forces you to do
certain things.

This was the point to which I was responding - and please note, that I
stated "I still don't agree that the use of a label causes a person to act
in a particular way" - at no time did I state that a certain label
"forces"
a person to do anything.

You DO understand the difference between causation, and force?

Anyway, here's the post to which I was responding

* * * * * ** * * * * * * * * * * * *
"Chris" wrote in message
news:MlvVg.863$UJ2.52@fed1read07...

"You DO realize that being labeled as "NCP" carries with it the burden of
having a money judgement against you to your ex, the loss of your
children,
and the very real threat of imprisonment, among other wonderful things.
You
cool with that?"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Now, the label of NCP is not the CAUSE of a money judgement, nor does it
FORCE a money judgement. There are other actions involved in the creation
of a money judgement.

The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the loss of children, nor does it
FORCE
the loss of children. There are other actions involved in the loss of
children.

The label of NCP is not the CAUSE of the threat of imprisonment, nor does
it
FORCE the threat of imprisonment. There are other actions involved in the
threat of imprisonment.

Now Teach, I've dumbed this down about as much as I possibly can for you -

You've dumbed it down to a straw man. The above is like saying pulling the
trigger is not what killed someone, rather the bullet ripping through their
skull did. It's reasoning like yours that allow criminals to be set free and
forces the innocent to pay the penalty for someone ELSE'S wrong doing!


I've pretty much kept it to words of one and two syllables for you.

If you still can't understand, then I suggest you go ask someone else.



For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly
become unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone
refers
to him as NCP.

What moron would state that one's self will is taken away by being
labeled? Please direct me to that post!


Already did - though please note, I wasn't the person doing the
namecalling
and referring to him as a moron.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message

[snip]

Nice try - but you continue to try to ignore the patently
obvious

Chris has quoted me correctly.

Perhaps he has - the 'he' to which I was referring was Rags, the
second option was from HIS list, also quoted correctly (by me).


Still, how does your "50/50 CP/NCP partnership" differ from the
current 100/0 that is so common today?

It wasn't *my* 50/50 partnership - I was quoting someone else.

I am one of those who is in a 100/0 situation due to the other
parent
deciding to drop out of it.

Are you suggesting that even if the CP
doesn't want to play the game according to a "partnership" there
would be steps to make them reasonable or for that matter, when
the
NCP doesn't want to be reasonable, how is this forced?

I made no such suggestion.

I didn't say you did, I simply asked you a question, which you
failed
to answer, as usual.

Hmmm, you asked if I was suggesting, and I stated that I made no such
suggestion. That's a no.



The problem is that on either side, all it takes is for one to not
play the game and that is exactly what is happening today.

Yup - that's how I ended up with 100/0

The incentives for not playing are the problem. Remove those and
most of the problems self-correct, IMO.

So perhaps you can explain what sort of incentive there is for the
parent that simply drops out? I've never understood how any parent
can walk away from their child, though I see it happening.

There is no incentive to finance the mechanism of one's demise.

I've personally known of a single case where a parent just walked
away
and that was the mother who found a new lover and he didn't want her
kids. At least she didn't strap them in a car and drive it into a
lake.
The main problem is that law has little place in ordering families
to
a situation where either parent is suddenly "less than" because they
are divorced. "Family" law needs to be scrapped and replaced with
common sense and understanding. Even though parents may not be able
to
remain married, divorce should be only between the two involved in
the
marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children.

So what do you do in the case of a parent who chooses to divorce
their
children?

Depends on age, for one thing. Since mothers can abandon their infants
(depending on the specific state as to how soon after birth), fathers
should have similar ability during the same period.
For children beyond the maximum age, the parents should both support
their
children as close to equally as possible with the same penalties for
either for failing to do so.

Now, do you care to address the original point or are you uninterested
because it's not about YOUR case?

I haven't mentioned *my* case at all - which 'original point' would you
like
addressed? Quite a few have been raised in this thread.



How about if we work on finding a solution for the vast majority of
the
cases--where such a thing didn't happen. The deal with the relatively
rare cases where it does happen.

So Phil's case of a parent just walking away shouldn't be discussed?
I'm
trying real hard to address points other posters raise, like "divorce
should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force
the
divorce of one parent and the children", and apparently you want to
deter
that discussion?

You want to discuss one type of case by changing the subject? How does
that work exactly?

You brought up a mother walking away from her kids, and posted that
parents
aren't divorcing their children. I asked a question about your posting.
Precisely HOW did I change the subject?

The point was the majority of cases where the parents divorce but each
wants to remain in the children's lives; so naturally, you start talking
about a second situation (yours, as always).

I didn't mention *my* situation at all -

That's right, because your situation has nothing to do with a parent who
chooses to divorce his children.

I asked a question, based on your
statement "divorce should be only between the two involved in the marriage
and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children."


Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
news:UquWg.1050$UJ2.415@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message

[snip]

Nice try - but you continue to try to ignore the patently
obvious

Chris has quoted me correctly.

Perhaps he has - the 'he' to which I was referring was Rags, the
second option was from HIS list, also quoted correctly (by me).


Still, how does your "50/50 CP/NCP partnership" differ from the
current 100/0 that is so common today?

It wasn't *my* 50/50 partnership - I was quoting someone else.

I am one of those who is in a 100/0 situation due to the other
parent
deciding to drop out of it.

Are you suggesting that even if the CP
doesn't want to play the game according to a "partnership" there
would be steps to make them reasonable or for that matter, when
the
NCP doesn't want to be reasonable, how is this forced?

I made no such suggestion.

I didn't say you did, I simply asked you a question, which you
failed
to answer, as usual.

Hmmm, you asked if I was suggesting, and I stated that I made no
such
suggestion. That's a no.



The problem is that on either side, all it takes is for one to
not
play the game and that is exactly what is happening today.

Yup - that's how I ended up with 100/0

The incentives for not playing are the problem. Remove those and
most of the problems self-correct, IMO.

So perhaps you can explain what sort of incentive there is for the
parent that simply drops out? I've never understood how any
parent
can walk away from their child, though I see it happening.

There is no incentive to finance the mechanism of one's demise.

I've personally known of a single case where a parent just walked
away
and that was the mother who found a new lover and he didn't want
her
kids. At least she didn't strap them in a car and drive it into a
lake.
The main problem is that law has little place in ordering families
to
a situation where either parent is suddenly "less than" because
they
are divorced. "Family" law needs to be scrapped and replaced with
common sense and understanding. Even though parents may not be able
to
remain married, divorce should be only between the two involved in
the
marriage and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children.

So what do you do in the case of a parent who chooses to divorce
their
children?

Depends on age, for one thing. Since mothers can abandon their infants
(depending on the specific state as to how soon after birth), fathers
should have similar ability during the same period.
For children beyond the maximum age, the parents should both support
their
children as close to equally as possible with the same penalties for
either for failing to do so.

Now, do you care to address the original point or are you uninterested
because it's not about YOUR case?

I haven't mentioned *my* case at all - which 'original point' would you
like
addressed? Quite a few have been raised in this thread.



How about if we work on finding a solution for the vast majority of
the
cases--where such a thing didn't happen. The deal with the
relatively
rare cases where it does happen.

So Phil's case of a parent just walking away shouldn't be discussed?
I'm
trying real hard to address points other posters raise, like "divorce
should be only between the two involved in the marriage and NOT force
the
divorce of one parent and the children", and apparently you want to
deter
that discussion?

You want to discuss one type of case by changing the subject? How does
that work exactly?

You brought up a mother walking away from her kids, and posted that
parents
aren't divorcing their children. I asked a question about your posting.
Precisely HOW did I change the subject?

The point was the majority of cases where the parents divorce but each
wants to remain in the children's lives; so naturally, you start
talking
about a second situation (yours, as always).

I didn't mention *my* situation at all -

That's right, because your situation has nothing to do with a parent who
chooses to divorce his children.

I will contoinue to not mention *my* situation.


I asked a question, based on your
statement "divorce should be only between the two involved in the
marriage
and NOT force the divorce of one parent and the children."


Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message

ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability
from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP)
and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept
of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label
that
someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and "non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers to him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do anything.

Right


HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved - and there are too
many divorvced, NCP fathers who manage to stay involved who would also
refute your statement.



Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition?
I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work.
Phil #3

"Chris" wrote in message
news:d5uWg.1042$UJ2.48@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message
ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP)
and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept
of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even "drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.

But they're only labels; they don't mean "jack". Thus, how can you be
certain of what's inside?

Don't you understand the difference between the name for something, as
opposed to an imposed label?



You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking
the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that someone
else might impose?

Phil #3


Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:_5uWg.1044$UJ2.574@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message

ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to
your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that
money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY
concern
that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected
(starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it
is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused,
neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is
born
out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion
is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable
single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in
desirability from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting.
Where
might that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be
covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of
couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent
(CP)
and one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed
the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is
NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP
labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the
concept
of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing
to
reverse the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take
the
other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS
the
one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles.
Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or
even
"drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least
a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement.
I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who
receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions
a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other
hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if
they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which
I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.
You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons,
or
taking the position that a person's actions are dictated by a
label
that
someone else might impose?


Somehow you feel that the terms "custodial parent" and
"non-custodial
parent" are not names but derogatory terms?

I supposed it's all in how the terms are used. Certainly, on the
chilod
support newsgroup, custodial parent isn't used as a name, nor as a
compliment, but as a derogatory term.

No matter what the label used, or how it's used, I still don't agree
that
the use of a label causes a person to act a particular way.

For example, a loving, concerned and involved father doesn't
suddenly
become
unloving, unconcerned and uninvolved because someone/anyone refers
to him
as
NCP.

Indeed, the label in and of itself does not force anyone to do
anything.

Right


HOWEVER, once your kourt folks brand the father with such label, he
IS
forced to become uninvolved. See the connection?

I don't agree - he is NOT forced to become uninvolved - and there are
too many divorvced, NCP fathers who manage to stay involved who would
also refute your statement.

When a father is removed by force from being with his children on a
daily basis, I'd call that forced uninvolvement.
Phil #3




Are you this simple-minded or just arguing to be in opposition?
I'll give you one thing, you are certainly a piece of work.
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:d5uWg.1042$UJ2.48@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
link.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:TWkVg.835$UJ2.501@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:4U2Vg.779$UJ2.660@fed1read07...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:tPVUg.744$UJ2.492@fed1read07...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Rags" wrote in message

ups.com...
Chris,

Lets see if I can stay on target in responding to your
comments
through
all of the history.


You begin your response with the claim that money
somehow has
to
change
hands. This is simply not true. The ONLY concern
that
anyone
should
have
is
whether or not a child is being neglected (starved,
beaten,
etc.)
Short
of
abuse, which is criminal behavior anyway, it is
absolutely
NOBODY'S
business
how one raises their child!

I agree. If the child is not being abused, neglected or
exposed
to
unreasonable risk, it s/b no ones business but the
parents.
The
problem is that once a marriage ends or a child is born
out
of
wedlock
emotion kicks in. And everone knows that emotion is the
death
knell
of
rational decision making.


In the interest of the child, I believe that an
intact
bio
family
is
best, a mutually respectful CP/NCP partnership a
distant
second,
and
an
involved, caring, responsible and accountable single
parent
household
third, with the options degrading in desirability
from
that
point
on.

You forgot mututally respectful 50/50 parenting. Where
might
that
fall
on
your list?

Mutually respectful 50/50 parenting should be covered by
the
"mutually
respecful CP/NCP partnership" statement. This of couse
only
applies
if
the parents are no longer in a dedicated mutually
respectful
monogamous
relationship.

As soon as you say one parent is the custodial parent (CP)
and
one
in
the
NONcustodial parent (NCP) you've pretty well trashed the
50/50
mutual
custody idea, because one is CUSTODIAL and one is NOT.
Mutually
respectful
50/50 parenting sounds good. Take off the CP/NCP labels.

Some folks, for some reason, fail to comprehend the concept
of
50/50.
For those who challenge my claim, let them be willing to
reverse
the
CP/NCP
roles to prove just how "50/50" it really is.

I'd be thrilled with 50/50. Right now, it's 100/0.

Put your MONEY where your MOUTH is and reverse the roles!

That would require the other parent being willing to take the
other
50%.
I'll be sure to let you know if that ever happens - he WAS the
one
who
ceded
sole custody to me :-)

I was NOT referring to 50/50 when I said "reverse" roles. Are YOU
willing to
be the NCP?

As I said, I would be thrilled with 50/50.

Labels don't mean jack - they're just words.


Including "pedophile" or "spousal abuser", "prostitute" or even
"drug
addict"?
They don't mean anything, they're just words?
How about "cop", "nurse", "felon", "jaywalker", "nerd", "couch
potato"
or even "parent"? Don't any of these labels tell you at least a
little
something about the individual?

They tell me far more about the person making the judgement. I've
seen
people on this newsgroup insist that a custodial parent who receives
child support is a thief.

Does that make it so?

Granted, there are some labels that are in response to actions a
person
took - like abuser, prostitute or drug addict. On the other hand,
some
labels are thrown around as weapons, with little regard to if they
actually fit any actions at all. Those are the labels to which I
object.

Your spice rack must be a bit of a gamble.

Ummm nope. Things are called by their name.

But they're only labels; they don't mean "jack". Thus, how can you be
certain of what's inside?

Don't you understand the difference between the name for something, as
opposed to an imposed label?

Again, how can you be certain of what's inside?




You know, salt is called 'salt'.
What does that have to do with throwing around labels as weapons, or
taking
the position that a person's actions are dictated by a label that
someone
else might impose?

Phil #3


Phil #3

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
No need in apologizing. Asking questions and asking for clarification is
much better then assuming. I don't look at a question for clarification
as an assumption.

You also don't tell people that you wish they had died in childbirth like
Pandora does.

No I never would. I happen to welcome people's views that are different
than mine. There is always something to gain by listening to & reading
other views.

Tracy