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 |
#241
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in My postion and thinking on the subject are fairly common in this country, What about the global thinking on equal human rights for everyone, should a man's existence be diminished because a political pressure group has come up with a sympathetic slogan that allows politicians to do as they please? When are we going to tell our political representatives that "in the best interest of the children" is not an excuse for ignoring human rights or denying freedoms that were hard fought for. No Mr. Senator, you do not get of that easy to ignore equality & human rights in the name of political agenda. Your job is to make sure the system is helping everyone involved, the present system does not do this, FIX IT!!!!!!!!!!! I've said this several times and I'll give it one more try, your rights exist in competition with the rights of all the people that you interact with. The law and the courts tell us who's rights are given precedience in any given situation, and they will continue to do so for as long as the United States remains. The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. It was done with due process, as a result of a consentual act. So dont give me a crap line of your rights have been trambled, without accepting the fact you are advocating trampling your kid's rights. Statistically households run by single mothers are the most poor, the most at risk. Society has a very large interest in seeing those kids get every possible chance. Yes the system is too harsh, and yes a third option is desperatly needed, but we cant afford the cost of tossing the system without something to fall back on. And a pure libertarian solution is a pipe dream. Ghostwriter |
#242
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote ................ The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. |
#243
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. Ghostwriter |
#244
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. == And? |
#245
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. Where's the bit that all men are equal? |
#246
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the facts. There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights of both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents have done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled by no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only one parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the family. This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on the child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the parents. No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of the child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have done nothing to forfeit their rights. |
#247
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in The phrase "best interest of the child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have done nothing to forfeit their rights. That phrase is just an excuse for the government to ignore everyone's basic rights. I don't ever recall that anyone was ever guaranteed a right to any quality of lifestyle, so where does the government get the authorization to act beyond a child's basic needs? Should my child be guaranteed a new car to ride to school in? |
#248
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. == And? And amazingly enough you dont get the right to demand an accounting for every dime of that money, its not relevent to the law. The CP actually gets to act in the best interests of the child without having you looking over their shoulder every moment. A law would have to be enacted to give you that right over the right to privacy of the CP. I cannot imagine a congress being willing to legalize what is very likley to become a means of harassing CPs. Challanges for every purchase, demands for justification of every penny, demands to know what the CP spends personal salary on etc. etc. etc. Its far too blunt an instrument to solve what should be solved by changing the percent of salary to a more adjustable number. And yes I realize that it would make an effective tool for illustrating that some CP waste the money while the NCP lingers near poverty. But like a lot of stormtrooper tactics it works both ways and I am unwilling to accept the cost. Ghostwriter |
#249
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Bob Whiteside wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... The law and the courts decided a long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation of child-support. == Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the *mother's* rights trump the kids' and the dads'. Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by definition "in the child's best interest". That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization. You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the facts. There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights of both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents have done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled by no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only one parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the family. This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on the child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the parents. No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of the child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have done nothing to forfeit their rights. The reality of the situation is that someone has to make the decisions, and those decisions cannot be nit-picked without creating a massive overload of the system and a huge cost. The idea that both parents should make all decisions works great in a functional marriage and even in a divorce between mature adults. It doesnt work in a situation where the two "adults" cant speak without arguing. The rights of the parents cancel each other out, so the rights of the child become the only reasonable standard. When the two people that are charged with safeguarding the child's interest fail to do so, the heavy hand of the state ends up having to prevent the situation from going straight to hell. The idea of that child support is somehow causing divorce is not supported by any statistics I have seen. CUSTODY has a huge impact on divorce rates, but divorced CPs have the worst average financial situations of any demographic. The threat of poverty has a significant effect on making people stay in failed marriages, but the presence of child-support has no effect on causing people to leave otherwise good marriages. It isnt a positive motivator but does lessen a negative one. The major issue I think you have is that child-support might cause someone to leave a salvageable marriage, the negative consequence of poverty being at least somewhat lessened. It is possible you are saying that you want the father to be able to bankrupt his wife so that she wont take the kids, but I doubt that is what you are going for. I dont necessarily disagee with that position but that situation needs solved long before the child-support stage. Its about teaching maturity to kids before they become parents, not forcing kids to do without because the parents are immature. Ghostwriter |
#250
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in I cannot imagine a congress being willing to legalize what is very likley to become a means of harassing CPs. Why not, they legalized a system to harrass all NCP's? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |