A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old December 21st 03, 02:13 AM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my
analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright
license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.)

For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have
four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if
someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child
support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not
undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a
custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not
only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS
order who is actually being paid by the mother.

As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years
to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years
now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For
one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my
daughter (I had custody of my son).


Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had
custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of
$ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't
have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system.
It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive
child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your
daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if
nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject.


For another, she could spend the
money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay
her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter
was with me.

I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's
particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases
in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish
a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and
family.


To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother
decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you
feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided
to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This
is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything
and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My
ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just
that I did leave.
Fair? Not in the least bit....

Phil #3 wrote:

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..

[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay

mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of

mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very

quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid

child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay

fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent

between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise

children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child

support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is

spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit

directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security

and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay

child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the

clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play

with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not

eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around

in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children

every
time
they send that check.


This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life

better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when

the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her

own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached

(which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or

even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the

majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives,

there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for

whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children

as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those

at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not

always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this.

Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent

a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B

gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc

while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of

the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every

case
does....


Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the

norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system

is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the

norm.
[snip]
Phil #3



  #62  
Old December 21st 03, 02:20 AM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial

parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know

several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and

custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about

the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents

are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial

fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers

of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations,

it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and

should
be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to

your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim

maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised.


I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the
children are better off with their fathers.


I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments.

(You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method

ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews

from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And

most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the

vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed

households.

okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the
productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your

original
arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of

CP
are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children

who
live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have

85
apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you

have
much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled

children
come from mothers households.


There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of
percentages -


Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you...


it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of
children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of
children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the
mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority

of
troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children)

do
not represent a significant number of "troubled children."

To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number
of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400

apples,
and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples,

not
85 out of 100 apples.

The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when
they are raised in two-parent households.

Agreed.....
And the 21.7 million children
raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to
becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school
dropouts, teen suicides, etc.

And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at
risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there
are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course
there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't
think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than
apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them
for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the
same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because
there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not
saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers
are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of
anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets,
you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get
it?




  #63  
Old December 21st 03, 02:20 AM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial

parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know

several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and

custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about

the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial parents

are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial

fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the mothers

of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations,

it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and

should
be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to

your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim

maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised.


I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the
children are better off with their fathers.


I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments.

(You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method

ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave reviews

from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for. And

most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the

vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed

households.

okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the
productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your

original
arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15% of

CP
are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled children

who
live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you have

85
apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because you

have
much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled

children
come from mothers households.


There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of
percentages -


Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you...


it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of
children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of
children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often the
mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority

of
troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children)

do
not represent a significant number of "troubled children."

To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the number
of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400

apples,
and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples,

not
85 out of 100 apples.

The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success when
they are raised in two-parent households.

Agreed.....
And the 21.7 million children
raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to
becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school
dropouts, teen suicides, etc.

And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most at
risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because there
are more mother headed households than father headed households so of course
there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really don't
think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than
apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan them
for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do the
same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because
there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not
saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers
are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of
anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery tickets,
you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get
it?




  #64  
Old December 21st 03, 03:18 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is

a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is

to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial

parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know

several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and

custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about

the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and

they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial

parents
are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the

glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial

fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the

mothers
of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the

joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations,

it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of

the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and

should
be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to

your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim

maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised.

I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the
children are better off with their fathers.


I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments.

(You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method

ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact

families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave

reviews
from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for.

And
most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the

vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed
households.

okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the
productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your

original
arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15%

of
CP
are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled

children
who
live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you

have
85
apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because

you
have
much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled

children
come from mothers households.


There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of
percentages -


Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you...


it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of
children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of
children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often

the
mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority

of
troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children)

do
not represent a significant number of "troubled children."

To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the

number
of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400

apples,
and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples,

not
85 out of 100 apples.

The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success

when
they are raised in two-parent households.

Agreed.....
And the 21.7 million children
raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to
becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school
dropouts, teen suicides, etc.

And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most

at
risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because

there
are more mother headed households than father headed households so of

course
there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really

don't
think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than
apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan

them
for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do

the
same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because
there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not
saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers
are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of
anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery

tickets,
you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get
it?


I did not say single mothers are "bad." What I said was children raised in
single mother households are more at risk to become troubled children.

Let's go back to the apple analogy and not confuse the issue with a second
analogy. We know that over 80% of the worms found in apples are found in
the 85 apple inventory with similar apple growing techniques. We know that
less than 20% of the worms found in apples are found in the other 315 apples
because they are grown using different techniques. It seems pretty obvious
that something is wrong with the way the 85 apples are grown, since they
have such a high incidence of worms per apple.

We know that over 80% of troubled children are raised in the 85 single
mother households. We know that less than 20% of troubled children come
from the 315 households where a father is present. If over 80% of a problem
is found in mother only households there is something about the way these
children are being raised that is putting them at risk.

If father only households coupled with two-parent households produce less
than 20% of troubled children, it is not a giant leap to say when fathers a
present society produces fewer troubled children. And conversely, when
mothers raise children in mother headed households without a father present,
the risks for children to become troubled children goes up substantially.


  #65  
Old December 21st 03, 03:18 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
ink.net...

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
The huge disparity in custody, ME, between fathers and mothers is

a
very important issue, and I make no apology for raising it and for
calling attention to efforts to fudge the question.

A major weapon in the armory of defenders of the CS status quo is

to
pretend that men and women are equally likely to be custodial

parents.
One way this is done is to rely on anecdotal evidence: "I know

several
fathers who have custody of their children." That's what you did.

Another way is to be very careful never to talk about fathers and
mothers, but always to speak about noncustodial parents and

custodial
parents. That's what the politicians, judges, CS bureaucrats, and
feminist groups do. They try to avoid anyone even thinking about

the
issue.

Yet another way is to be careful to ensure that the actual numbers
don't leak out. So, for example, if you ask in my state about the
issue, you get told that they don't collect these numbers, and

they
don't know. If pressed, they will agree that most custodial

parents
are
mothers. They will never acknowledge the continuation of the

glass
ceiling on paternal custody, or the fact that very few custodial

fathers
even have orders requiring that they be paid CS (in large measure
because most fathers wouldn't even try to get money from the

mothers
of
their children. They are more than content to have custody.)

Finally, another way of distorting the numbers is to fudge the

joint
custody issue. In the great majority of joint custody situations,

it
is joint legal custody, but the mothers have physical custody of

the
children. That's no different from sole maternal custody, and

should
be
counted as such in the numbers.

I believe there is a fifth way of distorting the numbers to add to

your
list. And that is to ignore the statistics altogether and claim

maternal
custody is the only correct way for children to be raised.

I never said I thought that, and I don't. There are cases where the
children are better off with their fathers.


I was adding to Kenneth's list and made no mention of your comments.

(You know the
old "calf never follows the bull" theory.) This distortion method

ignores
that children are parented successfully by fathers in intact

families,
widowers raise children all the time, and CP fathers get rave

reviews
from
their adult children for the way they were raised and cared for.

And
most
importantly this distortion ignores all the statisitcs that show the

vast
majority of troubled children are the products of mother-headed
households.

okay, very unfair...."the vast majority of troubled children are the
productsof mother-headed households"....this just goes back to your

original
arguement of more mothers having custody than fathers....If only 15%

of
CP
are fathers then it is obvious that there will be more troubled

children
who
live with the mother because 85% are raised my their mother. If you

have
85
apples and I have 15 yours will find more worms than I will because

you
have
much more. So that is a very unfair thing to say that more troubled

children
come from mothers households.


There is a significant problem with this type of illogical use of
percentages -


Hey I was just going by the percentages given to me....by you...


it ignores the fact that there is an additional huge group of
children living in two-parent families. The Census reports 26.2% of
children (21.7 million children) live with a single parent (most often

the
mother), and that is the group of children who become the "vast majority

of
troubled children." The other 73.8% of children (61.1 million children)

do
not represent a significant number of "troubled children."

To use your analogy, the 85 apples have more worms if you limit the

number
of apples to only 100 apples. But in reality, there are really 400

apples,
and the vast majority of worms are being found in 85 out of 400 apples,

not
85 out of 100 apples.

The statistics are clear - children have a greater chance for success

when
they are raised in two-parent households.

Agreed.....
And the 21.7 million children
raised in mother-headed households are the ones who are most at risk to
becoming drug addicts, incarcerated criminals, teenage mothers, school
dropouts, teen suicides, etc.

And why are the children raised in mother headed households the ones most

at
risk over the ones raised in father headed households? Simply because

there
are more mother headed households than father headed households so of

course
there will be more of such 'bad apples' raised by mothers.....I really

don't
think you are seeing my point. This time lets use something other than
apples. Lets say--computers---Take a large group of computers and scan

them
for viruses--then take a significantly smaller group of computers and do

the
same....YES you are going to find more viruses in the larger group because
there was more to start with....Do you get what I am saying now? I am not
saying fathers are bad at raising children (you are clearly saying mothers
are abd at raising children) I am simply saying that there will be more of
anything in a larger group than a smaller one. Buy $100 in lottery

tickets,
you will win more $ than if you only buy $10 in tickets.....Now do you get
it?


I did not say single mothers are "bad." What I said was children raised in
single mother households are more at risk to become troubled children.

Let's go back to the apple analogy and not confuse the issue with a second
analogy. We know that over 80% of the worms found in apples are found in
the 85 apple inventory with similar apple growing techniques. We know that
less than 20% of the worms found in apples are found in the other 315 apples
because they are grown using different techniques. It seems pretty obvious
that something is wrong with the way the 85 apples are grown, since they
have such a high incidence of worms per apple.

We know that over 80% of troubled children are raised in the 85 single
mother households. We know that less than 20% of troubled children come
from the 315 households where a father is present. If over 80% of a problem
is found in mother only households there is something about the way these
children are being raised that is putting them at risk.

If father only households coupled with two-parent households produce less
than 20% of troubled children, it is not a giant leap to say when fathers a
present society produces fewer troubled children. And conversely, when
mothers raise children in mother headed households without a father present,
the risks for children to become troubled children goes up substantially.


  #66  
Old December 21st 03, 07:41 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"ME" wrote in message ...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"ME" wrote in message
...


snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.

----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off

with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the

child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream,
louder than words.


So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt

----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it.


Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can

imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.

-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.


You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young?
-------------------


Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their
lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the
counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the
root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people
involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad?

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad

owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week)

-----------------

snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.

-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the

poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.


When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------


And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's
attention to something more positive? WHY is this child, who has
never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T
have? There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing
all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad.
Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as
childhood schizophrenia or something?

To make this story as short as possible
because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by
men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly
both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child
support etc.

----------------
And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything
done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations.
-------------------
My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in
using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also
ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the
child, providing clothes or moral support)
Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and
dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc.

--------------
She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the
choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All
men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose.


Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments.
Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.


All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?
What? Women can't work and earn money? Women can't take children on
outings? Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?
Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.

-------------------
Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control,
RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life

-------------------------
No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The
right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to
get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own

choices.
A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent.


Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do
so.
BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect
world
it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we
don't live in a perfect world do we?


So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he
signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he
just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay?

--------------------
but then make a law that Dad also
has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad.

---------------
What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of

cs
to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for

you?
Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the

country
who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily
garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should
bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay

their
cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses

of
any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those

things.

Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise
a
child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child
support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I
know a girl
who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200
is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a
week? come on....


$15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month
because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their
salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs
paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS.
Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts!

---------------------
This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.


Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly.
  #67  
Old December 21st 03, 07:41 AM
TeacherMama
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

"ME" wrote in message ...
"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...

"ME" wrote in message
...


snip

A girl I know gets pregnant a week before her 17th birthday.
Her boyfriend says the baby is not his and breaks it off with
her immediatley, but he does vow that if blood test reveal
he is the father he would support the child totally.
She goes through the pregnancy without him.
When the baby is 6 months old
Mom needs a car to get a job, since she has now graduated high
school. She works out a loan with her Aunt who tells her she
won't loan her the money unless she takes the baby's father
to court for child support. She does this. Dad requests blood tests.
Dad tells the domestic relations hearing officer of all Mom's partners
at the time of conception....although he was the only one she was
with. Blood tests come back that he is indeed the daddy of the baby.
$45 a week is ordered, yippy. Years go by, no support.

----------------------------
What, did she think that somehow a court order was going to turn this guy
into your version of a responsible parent? Get real, as soon as he
learned of her pregnancy he "says the baby is not his and breaks it off

with
her immediatley". Buy a clue. He may have said he would "support the

child
totally" maybe just to get her off his back but his actions speak, scream,
louder than words.


So Dad shouldn't be responsible for his actions? Let Dad off with nothing
because
he said it wasn't his from day 1?
--------------------------
After 2 1/2
years she starts getting child support when Dad feels like paying it.
He sees the child, then doesnt, then does, then doesnt

----------------------
Maybe when Dad feels like paying it is really when dad is ABLE to pay it.


Dad is ABLE to pay....at least in this case
---------------------
....Baby is now 5
years old. Dad still doesn't pay child support like he is court
ordered and Mom can't get any help from the courts. (Seems the
enforcing officers just have too much to do with all the other
cases....ya know the ones who owe more back support) Baby
starts to see psychiatrists, therapists and any other 'ist' you can

imagine.
Baby is so emotionally disturbed he sees them 2-4 times a month
depending on behavior and emotional outbursts.

-------------------
And this is the fault of a person who isn't even there? I think it's more
likely that it's the fault of the mother who IS there.


You miss the point that Dad was there....then wasn't....then was....he would
see Baby tell him see ya next weekend etc.then not call for 6 months, then
see him one day a week for the next 6 months then not call for another few
months....you don't think that would hurt a child? Especially one so young?
-------------------


Children pretty much tend to accept that what is happening in their
lives is normal--they have nothing else to compare it to. Has the
counselor made that statement that dad's lack of involvement is the
root of this child's problems? Or is their a diagnosis that people
involved with the child have chosen to blame on dad?

Dad doesn't bother
to call, send a card, a letter, or send child support. (By the way, Dad

owns
his own business, and for the last 4 years sat in bars 6 days a week)

-----------------

snip

--------------------
Baby spends a week in the inpatient child psychiatry unit at 6 years old
because he told Mom he wanted to kill himself. What came out
in therapy sessions? Dad did this, Dad did that, Dad didn't do this,
Dad didn't do that.

-------------------
Puh-leeeze! the only thing that dad didn't do was pay mommy the money she
felt she deserved. Daddy was never around right?! So how could he have
done this and not do that, blah blah. More likely that mommy TOLD the

poor
kid a bunch of stuff to tweak his head.


When baby started asking why dad isnt around all Mom said was 'because'
She dialed the phone and let baby speak to Dad so HE could tell Baby why he
doesnt bother. Mom never told baby anything bad (or good) about Dad. She
thought it best to let baby make his own decision about Dad..
--------------------


And why would mom do that? Why would mom not direct her young child's
attention to something more positive? WHY is this child, who has
never had dad full time in his life, so focussed on what he DOESN'T
have? There is way more to this story than poor, helpless mom doing
all she can to help poor helpless baby deal with hateful, nasty dad.
Is there an underlying diagnosis that you are not sharing, such as
childhood schizophrenia or something?

To make this story as short as possible
because I could go on forever, your PLAN B is often ignored by
men also. Around here you have to give your arm and leg and possibly
both to get something done about violating court orders, getting child
support etc.

----------------
And everywhere you could give away everything and still never get anything
done about violating visitation orders and false abuse allegations.
-------------------
My point is this, although women may ignore the mans decisions in
using birth control, RU-486, abortion, adoption etc etc, men also
ignore the fatherly rights they have. (child support, even seeing the
child, providing clothes or moral support)
Meanwhile mom struggles to survive because she chose LIFE and
dad chose BAR, sports car etc etc etc.

--------------
She chose, she chose! That's EXACTLY the point! SHE makes all of the
choices. SHE can choose LIFE or ABORTION or ADOPTION or ABANDONMENT. All
men can do is sit by and wait to see what she will choose.


Men can choose to support their child, forget about child support payments.
Take the kid to the park on the weekend. Send a card on birthday's. Call
just to see how school went that day....All women can do is sit around and
wait
for dad to live up to his responsibilities as a father.


All women can do is sit around and wait for a man to give them money?
What? Women can't work and earn money? Women can't take children on
outings? Women can't keep their children;s lives too full for moping?
Women can't point their children to the bright side of things? Women
are so dependent on men that their children end up in psyciiatric
hospitals if men don't do what women think they should? You are
painting a very grim picture of women here.

-------------------
Sure, make a law that the Dad has to sign permission for birth control,
RU-486, abortion, adoption, or life

-------------------------
No. Make a law giving men the SAME rights that women currently have. The
right to decide to be a parent or not. While a man can't force a women to
get an abortion he should be able to force her to live with her own

choices.
A man should be able to choose to 'sign off' from being a parent.


Here a man can sign his parental rights away. This case, Dad refuses to do
so.
BUT mom does have to agree to let dad do it also. Like I said in a perfect
world
it would be a choice made together in the event a women got pregnant, but we
don't live in a perfect world do we?


So if the man signs away his parental rights, does that also mean he
signs away his responsibilities, such as child support? Or does he
just lose his right to visitation, and still has to pay?

--------------------
but then make a law that Dad also
has to live up to his responsibilities of being a Dad.

---------------
What, the current set of laws requiring men to pay outrageous amounts of

cs
to women who have made the choice to become a parent aren't enough for

you?
Maybe they should have a national registry where all the men in the

country
who are working are required to be listed so that the courts can easily
garnish their paychecks and take their tax refunds. And maybe they should
bring back the 'debtors prisons' and lock up men who are unable to pay

their
cs. And then they could take away the drivers and professional licenses

of
any man who gets behind on their cs. Oh wait, they already DO those

things.

Outrageous amounts of child support? How much do you think it takes to raise
a
child? Sit and think about it. Not everyone pays outrageous amounts of child
support, and it is supposed to be based on the income of both parties. I
know a girl
who pays $15 a week, but I also know a guy who pays over $200 a week. $200
is outrageous but normally the amounts are not all that outrageous. $15 a
week? come on....


$15 per week would be nice--I know men who are paying $1000+ per month
because that was the guidline amount when they divorced for their
salary level. Even though some have been laid off and now have jobs
paying far less, the courts have refused to lower the amount of CS.
Yes, ME, there are many who are paying outrageous amounts!

---------------------
This argument could
go on forever, and so could I. Women are in the wrong, men are in the
wrong.
Men shouldn't have to pay for the choices of women? Women pay
for the choices of men each and every single day.


Are they? Please explain this statement a bit more clearly.
  #68  
Old December 21st 03, 03:31 PM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but
physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious
problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had
serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she
agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter.

However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to
a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of
getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more
than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the
guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my
attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I
could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also
told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I
would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in
the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority.

On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this
ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that
70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their
husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering
the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates
that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the
traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead,
they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart."

There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as
this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in
the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to
break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually
guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child
support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50,
regardless of which spouse created the wealth.

You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your
marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my
observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband.

One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part,
men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating
the impression that they were innocent parties. So there's a one-sided
propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying
tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to
give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people
the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the
"see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument.




ME wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my
analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright
license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.)

For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have
four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if
someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child
support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not
undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a
custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not
only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS
order who is actually being paid by the mother.

As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years
to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years
now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For
one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my
daughter (I had custody of my son).


Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had
custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of
$ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't
have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system.
It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive
child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your
daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if
nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject.

For another, she could spend the
money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay
her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter
was with me.

I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's
particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases
in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish
a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and
family.


To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother
decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you
feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided
to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This
is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything
and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My
ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just
that I did leave.
Fair? Not in the least bit....

Phil #3 wrote:

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay

mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of

mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very

quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid

child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay

fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent

between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child

support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is

spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit

directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security

and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not

eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around

in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children

every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life

better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when

the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her

own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached

(which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or

even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the

majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives,

there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for

whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children

as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those

at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not

always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this.

Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent

a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B

gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of

the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every

case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the

norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system

is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the

norm.
[snip]
Phil #3

  #69  
Old December 21st 03, 03:31 PM
Kenneth S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women

As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but
physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious
problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had
serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she
agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter.

However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to
a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of
getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more
than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the
guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my
attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I
could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also
told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I
would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in
the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority.

On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this
ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that
70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their
husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering
the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates
that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the
traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead,
they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart."

There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as
this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in
the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to
break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually
guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child
support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50,
regardless of which spouse created the wealth.

You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your
marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my
observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband.

One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part,
men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating
the impression that they were innocent parties. So there's a one-sided
propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying
tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to
give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people
the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the
"see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument.




ME wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my
analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright
license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.)

For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have
four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if
someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say child
support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not
undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a
custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not
only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS
order who is actually being paid by the mother.

As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10 years
to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years
now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For
one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my
daughter (I had custody of my son).


Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had
custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form of
$ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't
have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS system.
It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't receive
child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for your
daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but if
nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject.

For another, she could spend the
money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay
her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter
was with me.

I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's
particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases
in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to establish
a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and
family.


To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother
decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do you
feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship decided
to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating) This
is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got everything
and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave? My
ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left, just
that I did leave.
Fair? Not in the least bit....

Phil #3 wrote:

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay

mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of

mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very

quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers paid

child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay

fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent

between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child

support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is

spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit

directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social security

and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them not

eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven around

in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children

every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life

better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even when

the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her

own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached

(which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares or

even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the

majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives,

there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for

whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the children

as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to those

at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning $10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not

always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of this.

Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial parent

a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B

gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take advantage of

the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every

case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm, the

norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$ system

is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the

norm.
[snip]
Phil #3

  #70  
Old December 21st 03, 06:54 PM
ME
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Choices, choices, choices -- but only for women


"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
As for my personal situation, ME, for about a year after the
divorce, my ex had custody of both children (joint legal custody, but
physical custody with her). After about a year, she had some serious
problems with my son -- which was utterly predictable, since she had
serious problems with him even when I was around. At that point she
agreed to let me have custody of my son, but not my daughter.

However, at the time of the custody change, my ex wouldn't agree to
a commensurate reduction in the "child support." So in the interests of
getting custody of my son, I agreed to pay her at a rate that was more
than twice what the state guidelines would have provided (and the
guidelines are already inflated, in my view). After several years, my
attorney advised me that, because of changed circumstances, probably I
could get a court to cut the amount that I paid her. However, he also
told me that it was unlikely to be worthwhile to try this, because I
would lose more in litigation costs than I would gain in reduced CS in
the time remaining before my son reached the age of majority.


Things are alot different there than here...Here to modify a court ordered
amount
for child support due to changed circumstances (conditions do apply but with
your
case you would have fell into this) all you have to do is pay $15 for a
modification
hearing and go in before a hearing officer and go over the change
circumstances and
if no agreement made one will be ordered by going over income and expenses.
(there
is a long long list of what they count and what they dont for both
parties...about 6 pages
worth of paperwork for each party alike, and gathering the proof of income
and expenses)

On the subject of who initiates divorce, we have been over this
ground several times in this news group. What it amounts to is that
70-75 percent of divorces in the U.S. are initiated by wives over their
husbands' objections. Research outlined in "Divorced Dads: Shattering
the Myths," by Sanford Braver -- as well as other places -- indicates
that the reasons why wives break up marriages are predominantly NOT the
traditional fault causes like adultery or domestic violence. Instead,
they are touchy-feely things like "we just grew apart."


'we just grew apart' is not right in my eyes....

There's a very important public policy issue in what I think of as
this dumper-dumpee ratio. In my view, current family law practices in
the U.S. have (mostly unintentionally) created incentives for wives to
break up their marriages. These incentives include: (1) virtually
guaranteed child custody for mothers, (2) high levels of "child
support," and (3) community property laws that split property 50/50,
regardless of which spouse created the wealth.


We got a 50/50 split--he got 2 cars and the house--I got the car with the
payment and all of the debt (credit cards etc)---he paid for the divorce, I
couldnt afford an attorney--Lessons learned here...

You seem to be saying that people blamed you because you left your
marriage. In my experience, that's very far from being typical. In my
observation, most people find ways of blaming the ex-husband.


I got the blame in this case....noone cared why I left-just that I left....

One reason for the tendency to blame men is that, for the most part,
men don't readily talk about their divorces, whereas women do, creating
the impression that they were innocent parties.

Agreed

So there's a one-sided
propaganda campaign going on. Another reason is the general underlying
tendency, when blame has to be allocated in male-female conflicts, to
give the woman a free pass. Whatever the circumstances, for many people
the man always is to blame. Failing all else, they fall back on the
"see-what-he-made-her-do" line of argument.


He didnt 'make' me leave. I left because he broke our vows. Yes, I left
because of something he did, but noone cares about why I left just that I
did.




ME wrote:

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
Phil:

You took the words out of my mouth. I was about to wheel out my
analogy about five-legged sheep(C). (You know there's a copyright
license fee for its use, but I'll waive it on this occasion.)

For ME's benefit, I should explain that, if someone says sheep have
four legs, the truth of that overall statement is not undermined if
someone else can find a sheep with five legs. Similarly, if I say

child
support is money that men pay women, the truth of that statment is not
undermined if someone else can find a father who is (1) not only a
custodial parent, but a custodial parent with a CS order, and (2) not
only a custodial parent with a CS order, but also a father with a CS
order who is actually being paid by the mother.

As for how fathers view CS, I personally paid it for more than 10

years
to my ex, although she has been off my payroll for quite a few years
now. I never regarded it as anything other than a subsidy to her. For
one thing, the amount was obviously far more than her expenses for my
daughter (I had custody of my son).


Sorry but i think that if she had custody of your daughter and you had
custody of your son there should not have been child support in the form

of
$ at all. And when you had her during the summer the same, you shouldn't
have had to pay. You truly have a reason to be ticked off at the CS

system.
It is definitly not right in your case, as I am assuming you didn't

receive
child support for your son, and if so it wasnt as much as you paid for

your
daughter...I know you havent agree with alot of my views and points, but

if
nothing else I truly feel for you on this particular subject.

For another, she could spend the
money any way she wanted. And, for a third, I had to continue to pay
her the money during periods (e.g. during the summer) when my daughter
was with me.

I believe most fathers view this CS expenses in the same way, and it's
particularly hard to swallow when (as in more than 70 percent of cases
in the U.S.) it was the mother, not the father, who decided to

establish
a single-parent family by expelling the father from his home and
family.


To bring up another subject on that note....70% of the cases the mother
decided on ending the relationship...I'm not arguing that, but how do

you
feel in the event that the party who decided to end the relationship

decided
to do so because the other party went outside the marriage? (cheating)

This
is another flaw in the system. In my divorce agreement my ex got

everything
and I got the bills. Why? Because I left the marriage...why did I leave?

My
ex broke our vows on more than 1 occasion. But noone cared why I left,

just
that I did leave.
Fair? Not in the least bit....

Phil #3 wrote:

"ME" wrote in message
...

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
..
[snip]

So-called "child support" is actually money that fathers pay

mothers,
because of the custody situation. If any significant number of

mothers
paid child support to fathers, the system would change very

quickly --
or to be more accurate, if any significant number of mothers

paid
child
support to fathers, that would indicate that the system had

ALREADY
changed.

So-called "child support" could also be actual money mothers pay
fathers....because, althought it may be rare, they do pay

fathers....so
child support is as you say 'non custodial parent paying money to

the
custodial parent'
I strongly feel that 'child support' could definitly be time spent

between
child and non custodial parent. But YES it does take money to

raise
children
that is why the non custodial parent is obligated to pay child

support.

Obviously not or there would be some guidelines about how this C$ is

spent
or at least a modicum of desire to see to it that children benefit

directly
and absolutely from the C$. There isn't, therefore that is not why

C$ is
ordered. Compare the rates of foster-parenting payments, social

security
and
AFDC payments and benefits with C$ guidelines. Only C$ spending has

no
guidelines, outlines or accountability. Odd, no?

If my children would ever live with their father, and I ordered to

pay
child
support, although it may hurt my financials, I would rather see

the
clothing
on my childrens backs, the food in their stomaches, the toys they

play
with,
the safe car they are transported in then not pay and watch them

not
eat
healthy, wear torn clothing, not have many toys and be driven

around
in a
vehicle that is unsafe....
Non custodial parents are making a better life for their children

every
time
they send that check.

This is patently untrue. The fact is that the C$ makes the CPs life

better
by virtue of giving her more money to spend on her choices. Even

when
the CP
uses the C$ for better housing, food and clothing, the CP benefits

along
with the children in living a SOL above that she could afford

otherwise,
meaning the CP is utilizing the other parent's income to bolster her

own. As
long as the minimal threshhold standard of neglect is not breached

(which is
hardly fit for children's physical and mental health), no one cares

or
even
looks. Even when it can be proven that the CP is *not* using the

majority of
C$ for the child but is, in fact using it as personal income, it is
impossible to change the situation either legally or actually.
If, indeed the focus was on the betterment of the children's lives,

there
would be *some* mandate about what C$ is for. As it is, C$ is for

whatever
the CP chooses, even when it has absolutely no relation to the

children
as
long as they are not neglected according to the state's definition

of
"neglect". The state's definition of "neglect" applies equally to

those
at
every income level; those earning $0 and those earning

$10,000/month.

Most non custodial parents look at it as paying the
custodial parent....maybe in some cases it is true where the

custodial
parent 'blows' the money or spends it on his or herself, but not

always.
This stuff should be evaluated on a case by case basis and the

entire
categories (custodia - non custodial) not put down because of

this.
Non
custodial parent A may be happy to pay support to see custodial

parent
a
give the children have a better life, while non custodial parent B

gets so
mad because he sees custodial parent B wearing the latest fashions

etc
while
she doesn't work herself. Not all CUSTODIAL PARENTS take

advantage of
the
CS system....Not all NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS pay child support....
I am not doubting that the figures do favor women -- but not every

case
does....

Five legged sheep. When a few of a category change from the norm,

the
norm
remains.
In my very limited viewpoint, the case of the CP gouging the C$

system
is
normal. Having a few differ from the norm does nothing to change the

norm.
[snip]
Phil #3



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.