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 |
#251
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... 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. Academic studies consistently show 2/3 to 3/4 of all divorces are the unilateral decision made by women. In cases where children are involved studies have documented over 90% of divorce decisions are made by mothers. The point you don't seem to want to acknowledge is women are the ones making the decisions about ending relationships not the courts. Just claiming the rights of parents cancel each other out does not make it a fact. The divorce regime is set up to allow women and government to act in collusion to prevent the rights of fathers from being heard. 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. It's just the opposite from what you claim. The state makes the situation go straight to hell. The more marriages the state can tear apart the more power and money the state generates. 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. Once again your claims do not match the facts. You are using the statistics about never married mothers to describe the financial situations of divorced mothers. The issue of poverty is very real for never married mothers because they typically come from the lower socio-economic strata of the population. Divorced mothers are just as well off post-divorce as being married. In some instances they are better off financially post-divorce. 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. My point continues to be the predictablility of the divorce outcomes of mother custody and guranteed CS money, encourage women to bail out of marriages (or not get married) because they offer women emotional and financial payoffs. If the outcomes for those two major factors were in question just about every marriage would be described as "salvageable." I believe the "best interests of the children" is for them to live in a two-parent biological family. That's where children do best in every measurable category concerning child development. 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. And forcing fathers out of children's lives is government sanctioned child abuse. |
#252
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote ................ 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. |
#253
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about anyone else posting on this topic. I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or incarcerated. CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing. Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you, you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to know how a salary is spent. Ghostwriter |
#254
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about anyone else posting on this topic. In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS money and how it is spent. I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or incarcerated. Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect, some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for "maltreatment." Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what number in the sample? CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing. My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state law. Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you, you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to know how a salary is spent. Not true. See above. |
#255
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"Bob Whiteside" wrote "ghostwriter" wrote Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about anyone else posting on this topic. In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS money and how it is spent. I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or incarcerated. Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect, some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for "maltreatment." Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what number in the sample? CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing. My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state law. Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you, you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to know how a salary is spent. Not true. See above. == That was quite an elaborate dance, eh? Gotta give him credit for effort and creativity. |
#256
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Bob Whiteside wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about anyone else posting on this topic. In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS money and how it is spent. $480 or $600 depending of if the child is 13 yet. I seldom take teenagers because of the age of my birth children so $16 per day per child is normal for me. After food, diapers, formula, extra utilities, etc that comes out to less than $0.50 per hour, $0.25 per man hour when both my wife and I are home. We also normally recieve a one time $100 voucher to a local department store for clothes/underwear etc. And the county usally gives another $100 for Christmas gifts for each child if you have a placement over the holidays. CPS also pays for daycare if both parents work during the day. Plus $400/year for the 20 hours of training that me and my wife require to stay licenced. Other than the voucher the money is always payed in arrears so I am usually out a couple of hundred bucks before the check arrives. If I have a small child I make maybe $250-300 a month, and that number goes down as the age and needs of the child increases. CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an average month. The case worker is required to visit the child in my home at least once a month, and usally mom and/or dad have a visit once a week, grandparents once ever two weeks, one doctors visit, one dentist visit, and oftentimes weekly therapy sessions. Just getting the child to practice normal hygiene is considered a major accomplishment. And I routinely amaze case workers because I am brave enough to start potty training in older toddlers. Of course the other reason that CPS is unlikley ever to require accounting of the money is the simple fact that we are a volunteer group, so making the process more difficult for us is a good way to drive us away. I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or incarcerated. Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect, some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for "maltreatment." Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what number in the sample? Maltreatment includes all possible forms of child abuse including dependancy type offences. Dependancy being the inability to provide secure food, shelter, etc. The number I quoted was from CPS in Ohio and only included physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. That suggests that 15% of cases were more pure dependency type situations whereas the 60% number that I quoted was the more severe neglect(which may or may not be a product of a dependancy situation) and physical/emotional abuse type offenses. Mothers are almost never accused of sexual abuse (about 3% of the time if memory serves). Anectdotally the abuse situations I have seen where mom has been single and the abuser have almost always involved chemical abuse in some way. The one situation where is was not was when mom was a complete doormat, had never been married, had gone from one abusive boyfriend to another, and her 11yo called the 911 and hid the phone so that the fight would be recorded. That mom was charged with neglect for failing to protect her children from the boyfriend. The charges were later dropped after she swore out a complaint against the boyfriend. Boyfriend was dodging the law but was stupid enough to show up for his appointment with his parole officer. They revoked his parole and he went to jail for a couple of years for that. CP's are held to a standard, currently existing neglect laws, just like other parents in this country. Adding some type of secondary accountability to allow the NCP to frustrate and harass has consitently been found to be a violation of the right to privacy of the CP. Its a nasty attempt to make the process of collecting the money more trouble than its worth. You are cloaking your greed under the "best interests of the child" in the same manner as you accuse the CP's of doing. My state has a provision in the law to allow the NCP to ask for an accounting of CS spending. In addition, any time a CS modification is undertaken a sworn Uniform Affidavit of Expenditures is required by state law. Thats the choice of the individual state, and a one time affidavit filed with a request for change is a fairly mild form, certainly more mild then a lot of people seem to be suggesting. Once you have paid child support the money no longer belongs to you, you can no more demand an account for it than an employer can demand to know how a salary is spent. Not true. See above. I stand corrected. Ghostwriter |
#257
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote ............ CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an average month. == No accounting is necessary when awards are based on actual and necessary costs. Accounting should be required when awards are based on income/lifestyle. |
#258
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). So a normal married couple is now called sexual responsibility? LOL And here i was thinking that the marriages that actually work was because two normal people know how to get along well with each other. You must be a real saint to take in other non sexually responsible people's kids? Let me guess, you are part of the silent moral majority? |
#259
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"DB" wrote "ghostwriter" wrote in Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). So a normal married couple is now called sexual responsibility? == Well, we don't know that his wife is "happily married." |
#260
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Gini wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote ............... 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. == Puleez!! YOU are unwilling to accept the cost? What cost is it for you? Apparently, you are unaware, or would rather "accept the cost," that 2/3 of all child abuse is committed by the mother. You really don't let reality get in the way of your drooling for money, do you? The assumption that the custodial parent inherently acts in the best interest of the child is nothing more than a tired cliche used by those who would rather not be inconvenienced by accountability. We've heard the same squeal by many CPs who stop by here for a dose of pity. They are quite willing to ravage dad while they cling white-knickled to their fist of cash and claim it's about the kid. Spare me. Until you are willing to accept responsibility and accountibility for your own obligations to the child(ren) you cannot claim with the slightest credibility that you are in it for anything other than cash. To assert that CPs have a right to spend the money as they wish because they inherently act in the best interest of the child is not only ludicrous, it's embarrassingly foolish. Actually it holds no benifit for me, I am the FATHER of two kids but am happily married to their mother (its called sexual responsibilty, give it a try). I am however a foster parent who gets to pick up the pieces when people have children, but no ****ing clue. I mentioned that fact near the beginning of this thread but that was a month ago so it is easy to make the mistake that I have some kind of vested interest in this system. Actually I am far more the objective observer than about anyone else posting on this topic. In my state foster parents are paid $387 to $497 per month depending on the age of the child. Are you claiming your household receives no benefit from those payments? Quite frankly, I believe there is a benefit to your household and that is why you are so strongly against accounting for CS money and how it is spent. $480 or $600 depending of if the child is 13 yet. I seldom take teenagers because of the age of my birth children so $16 per day per child is normal for me. After food, diapers, formula, extra utilities, etc that comes out to less than $0.50 per hour, $0.25 per man hour when both my wife and I are home. We also normally recieve a one time $100 voucher to a local department store for clothes/underwear etc. And the county usally gives another $100 for Christmas gifts for each child if you have a placement over the holidays. CPS also pays for daycare if both parents work during the day. Plus $400/year for the 20 hours of training that me and my wife require to stay licenced. Other than the voucher the money is always payed in arrears so I am usually out a couple of hundred bucks before the check arrives. If I have a small child I make maybe $250-300 a month, and that number goes down as the age and needs of the child increases. CPS is extremely unlikley to ever require an accounting out of foster parents, the child is seen a great many times in the course of an average month. The case worker is required to visit the child in my home at least once a month, and usally mom and/or dad have a visit once a week, grandparents once ever two weeks, one doctors visit, one dentist visit, and oftentimes weekly therapy sessions. Just getting the child to practice normal hygiene is considered a major accomplishment. And I routinely amaze case workers because I am brave enough to start potty training in older toddlers. Of course the other reason that CPS is unlikley ever to require accounting of the money is the simple fact that we are a volunteer group, so making the process more difficult for us is a good way to drive us away. I have literally thousands of hours of experience dealing with abuse and neglect issues in children, and hundreds of hours of training to go allow with that experience. And while 60% of the abusers are single mothers, poverty is hugely correlated to those cases. About 85% of abusive mothers are below the poverty line (this number is from a training manual, if you want to question its validity I will try to find a neutral source). The vast majority of abusive mothers are charged with neglect and dependency offences, things that directly correlate to poverty. Even with neglect cases, the majority of single mothers of children in foster care have been abused by the fathers of those same children, and/or both parents are drug addicted or incarcerated. Perhaps you can explain all the different percentages that get tossed around regarding child abuse and neglect. Some percentages are for the Harm Standard and some are for the Endangered Standard. Then there are issues of percentages being applied to "parents" and sometimes to "both parents." But parents can be defined as single-parents, biological parents, and parent-substitutes. Some percentages are for abuse, some are for neglect, some are for both abuse and neglect, and still others are for "maltreatment." Here's an example: The National Incidence Study for Child Abuse and Neglect reports 75% of maltreated children were maltreated by their mothers. Above you wrote 60% of abusers are single mothers. So the questions become - What is the difference between abuse and maltreatment? Which standard is being quoted? And how are the percentages determined, i.e. a percent of what number in the sample? Maltreatment includes all possible forms of child abuse including dependancy type offences. Dependancy being the inability to provide secure food, shelter, etc. The number I quoted was from CPS in Ohio and only included physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. That suggests that 15% of cases were more pure dependency type situations whereas the 60% number that I quoted was the more severe neglect(which may or may not be a product of a dependancy situation) and physical/emotional abuse type offenses. Mothers are almost never accused of sexual abuse (about 3% of the time if memory serves). Anectdotally the abuse situations I have seen where mom has been single and the abuser have almost always involved chemical abuse in some way. The one situation where is was not was when mom was a complete doormat, had never been married, had gone from one abusive boyfriend to another, and her 11yo called the 911 and hid the phone so that the fight would be recorded. That mom was charged with neglect for failing to protect her children from the boyfriend. The charges were later dropped after she swore out a complaint against the boyfriend. Boyfriend was dodging the law but was stupid enough to show up for his appointment with his parole officer. They revoked his parole and he went to jail for a couple of years for that. Thanks for trying to explain it. I already knew nobody could really pin it down with factual data. The statistics get so mudded up it is impossible to be able to state with certainty what "60% of abusers are mothers" really means. It could be 60% of all abusers, 60% of mother only abusers, 60% of maltreatment by mothers is abuse, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical, 60% of abuse by mothers is psychological, 60% of abuse by mothers is physical, etc. But your anecdote is very good. It illustrates a point we have discussed here many times. It is not the biological fathers who do the abuse, neglect, or maltreatment. It is the mother's poor choices in boyfriends who are the males doing the vast majority of crimes against children. It is my personal belief mothers should be prosecuted for endangering their children by inviting bad characters into their homes and exposing their children to poor treatment. Under current CS law, we pay mothers money to perpetuate and abet these crimes against their children. Giving these low life mothers money for breeding and shacking up is like pouring gasoline on a fire! |
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 |