Joint custody bill not in child's interest - says NOW's NY chapter

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message

news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in message
news7pl22d8rh10d3vscdknq8m8mdqg46s51e @4ax.com...

On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"
wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the caregiver and the

non-custodial

parent carry the same load and devote the same time to their

children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a week in labor to
the
support of my children. My daughters mother devotes
about....um...0

in

financial support. As for actual "parenting time" that adds up
to 2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On the weekends she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the loads are not
equal.



The basis for this strong battle of the fathers' rights
groups is

totally

financial. It is frequently reported by school guidance
counselors

that a

common complaint of children of divorce is that they don't
see

their

fathers, and it is not unusual for children to complain about
the

inequities

of material advantages they often observe when their father

acquires

his

new

family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the fact that when my

daughter

reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her mother is a
leech.

She

mooches off the people she knows and the state in which she
lives.


This bill establishes the pretext of a continuing
relationship

between

children and non-custodial parents, and falsely legislates in
the

best

interest of the child. The reality is that it does nothing to

advance

the

welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend with my daughter is
on

the

pretext of it being some sort of relationship. To her, I'm
just some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or longer,
depending on

the

mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother
can go

out

and

play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own children equate to
being a

babysitter? Is that really how you view your

time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with
perceptions

by

fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is
the

father's

time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules

initiated

by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the
children

or

free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with their children as
'free

babysitting time", I'd certainly question their

perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting one's
children -

babysitting is what you do for other people's

children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're parenting.

Come on, Moon. You know exactly what they are saying.


Yes, I do - they view themselves as babysitters of their own
children, which baffles me - it sets up a situation
where they can continue to slam mom, and mom can never do it to dad's
satisfaction.

If Mom goes out, and hires a sitter, so as to NOT be 'using dad as a
free babysitter', then dad raises hell because
how DARE mom 'dump' the kids with someone else when there's a
perfectly good PARENT (dad) with whom the kids can
spend time.

Yet when mom gives dad first right of refusal, and wants the kids to
go with dad (which is theoretically better
than dumping them with a sitter, according to dear old dad) then dad
pitches a bitch that mom's just using him as
a free babysitter.

Dad has clearly set mom up to be the evil person, no matter HOW mom
tries to handle it.

That's what I object to.

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the
kids for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.

Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend
time with their own kids.

Got it.

Wait a minute: Mom gets money from Dad to pay for expenses for child
while child is with her.

And some expenses continue even when the child isn't with her - do you
think health insurance is turned on and off, only
in force when the children are with mom? How about that spot in day care?
Perhaps you are unaware, but the costs are
generally done on a monthly basis, and yes, you even have to pay when the
child isn't there.

Child support is based on how much time child is with
her.

Child support is based on the costs and expenses of the children, with the
assumption that they are living with the
parent who is receiving the child support.

If she has dad care for child while she runs off to do her thing for
the weekend, why would she NOT give dad the money intended to provide
for the child for that time? Is dad supposed to
pay twice for those days?

So dad wants to be paid for having the kids for the weekend?

No more so than mom wants to be paid for having the kids the rest of the
time.





After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her
kids", now, does she?

Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the children
benefit. You know, like a place to live,
food to eat, medical care, school expenses, clothing, entertainment,
sports, etc. Nor does she ask for more money to
cover times that the kids are supposed to be with an absent dad.

Oh--I see. Dad dloes not provide the child with a place to live, food
to eat, etc, while child is with him during the
time that mom is off doing her thing. Hmmmm.......


--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So my ex, who decided 3 years ago to stop seeing the children, should
be rewarded for this selfishness? You sure you
want to promote that idea?

Fathers don't "visit" their children. They raise them. Why do you
make your ex so uncomfortable and broke that he can't raise his own
children? Your the guilty one. Not your ex.


Damn, you have stumpy pegged and you don't even know her history.

It cracks me up. The government folks say that a father has to be
responsible for his children as a parent, yet they have the nads to label
him as a "visitor"! What's up with THAT?

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

ink.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message

nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
news
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in
message

news
"Moon Shyne" wrote in
message

...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...

"Pete" wrote in
message

news
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 17:26:07 -0500, "Dusty"

wrote:



It is an erroneous implication that the
caregiver
and
the
non-custodial
parent carry the same load and devote the
same
time
to
their
children.

This is correct. I devote about 60 hours a
week
in
labor to
the
support of my children. My daughters mother
devotes
about....um...0
in
financial support. As for actual "parenting
time"
that
adds
up
to
2
hours in the morning and maybe 5 at night. On
the
weekends
she
gets
dumped off on her grandmother. So yes, the
loads
are
not
equal.


The basis for this strong battle of the
fathers'
rights
groups
is
totally
financial. It is frequently reported by
school
guidance
counselors
that a
common complaint of children of divorce is
that
they
don't
see
their
fathers, and it is not unusual for children
to
complain
about
the
inequities
of material advantages they often observe
when
their
father
acquires
his
new
family.

The only thing that keeps me going is the
fact
that
when
my
daughter
reaches a certain age, she'll realize that her
mother
is a
leech.
She
mooches off the people she knows and the state
in
which she
lives.

This bill establishes the pretext of a
continuing
relationship
between
children and non-custodial parents, and
falsely
legislates
in
the
best
interest of the child. The reality is that it
does
nothing
to
advance
the
welfare of the children of New York.

She is correct yet again! Any time I spend
with
my
daughter
is
on
the
pretext of it being some sort of relationship.
To
her,
I'm
just
some
guy that she gets to see every other week (or
longer,
depending
on
the
mental state of the leech).

Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter,
and
the
mother
can
go
out
and
play during this time with the FREE money that
is
extorted
from
you.

Since when did spending time with one's own
children
equate to
being
a
babysitter? Is that really how you view your
time with your children?

Your point is valid, but some of this debate has
to
do
with
perceptions
by
fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled
visitation
time is
the
father's
time. Extra visitation time, or changes to
visitation
schedules
initiated
by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra
time
with the
children
or
free babysitting time.

If some fathers are viewing additional time with
their
children
as
'free
babysitting time", I'd certainly question their
perception. Last time I checked, it was parenting
one's
children -
babysitting is what you do for other people's
children.

You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing
the
service.
Fathers
pay to perform it.

Fathers aren't babysitting their own children. They're
parenting.

You are right again. When mothers demand fathers parent
beyond
a
court's
visitation order and the moms are just giving the dads
additional
parenting
opportunities. And I am sure you will agree, fathers
should
never be
given
credit for this additional parenting time by reducing CS
for
their
increased
time spent with their children.

How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because
he
had
the
kids
for 1 additional night? Sure sounds like
you're the one demanding to be paid for parenting your own
children -
but
wait, that's what you accuse the MOMs of
doing, isn't it?

1/30th of his CS obligation, or an amount equivalent to
what
mom
would
have
to pay for an overnight sitter, whichever is greater plus
any
extra
costs
like transportation.

As you may not be able to see this topic from the father's
perspective,
the
scenario we are discussing is not about 4-5 hours while mom
goes
out for
the
evening. It is typically when mom goes away for an
overnight
or
a
weekend.
I'm so far removed from paying babysitters I have no idea
what
the
current
going rates are. But I do recall many years ago paying $3
per
hour
for
two
children and a flat rate of at least $30 for an overnight
sitter.

If mom is to be compensated to care for the children while
in
her
custody,
fathers should get the same treatment when they perform
extra
visitation
time.

Are you saying that my ex should have been compensating me
for
all
those
missed weekends since he decided to drop out of
the fathering game? Lemme see - 26 weekends per year, times
3
years,
times 2 nights per weekend - so you're saying he
owes me $4,680 so far? (using your figure of $30 for
overnight,
of
course)

Is this intentional stupidity?

What's wrong, Bob? Don't like it when your own words and
figures
are
embraced? Or is it that it just doesn't
support what you claim it does?

Obviously, you failed to comprehend what Bob posted

Perhaps you want to go back and read each individual posting -
perhaps
you
missed the following tidbit?

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

How much do you think dad's CS should be reduced because he had
the
kids
for 1 additional night? Sure sounds like
you're the one demanding to be paid for parenting your own
children -
but
wait, that's what you accuse the MOMs of
doing, isn't it?

1/30th of his CS obligation, or an amount equivalent to what mom
would
have
to pay for an overnight sitter, whichever is greater plus any
extra
costs
like transportation.

You asked a question - I gave you a straightforward answer. I
believe
it is
grossly unjust for the government to acknowledge the CS guidelines
are
developed based on the assumption the CP has the children 100% of
the
parenting time

You've claimed this 100% time share a number of times.......... got
any
cites for this?

Of course. But you forget about these cites and pretend they were
never
posted even though they do exist.

Here is a direct quote from my state's CSE web site:

"It was always assumed that the guidelines accounted for a basic
visitation
schedule with the noncustodial parent. Upon further investigation, we
discovered this was not the case. Because the scale is based on a
study
of
intact households, the scale actually presumes that one household has
the
child 100% of the time."

How about providing the URL for this quote, so that anyone who might
want
to can see context and surrounding points.

I cited the third one down on the list of FAQ's about the 2003 CS changes.
There are 6-7 questions answered about the parenting plans on this page.

Note the parenting plan law change reduced the point where a CS award was
adjusted for NCP parenting time from 35% to 20%. The net result is CP's
have become less willing to share parenting time with NCP's so they can
retain full CS payments by never exceeding the 20% threshold. That is why
I
advocate one-to-one reimbursement for extra parenting time that is done
outside a formal parenting plan CS order.

Perhaps the way they calculate this is because the sperm is only 20% the
size of the egg?
You know the old tired argument for "child support" is that a child has TWO
parents? Well, they need to change that to "a child has 1 and 1/5 parents".



http://www.dcs.state.or.us/oregon_ad...deline_faq.htm

"Chris" wrote in message
news:w5%Xf.2488$qd.2323@fed1read08...

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So my ex, who decided 3 years ago to stop seeing the children,
should
be rewarded for this selfishness? You sure you
want to promote that idea?

Fathers don't "visit" their children. They raise them. Why do you
make your ex so uncomfortable and broke that he can't raise his own
children? Your the guilty one. Not your ex.


Damn, you have stumpy pegged and you don't even know her history.

It cracks me up. The government folks say that a father has to be
responsible for his children as a parent, yet they have the nads to label
him as a "visitor"! What's up with THAT?

Stop buying into the government spin. Fathers are not the visitors. The
children are the visitors. Fathers are the family outcasts who had to be
expelled from the family unit. Fathers have no visitation rights. They
have the right to be visited.

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...

snip

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take
the
kids for a while and then give him back some
of the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.

Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to
spend
time with their own kids.

Got it.

Wait a minute: Mom gets money from Dad to pay for expenses for
child
while child is with her.

And some expenses continue even when the child isn't with her - do
you
think health insurance is turned on and off,
only in force when the children are with mom? How about that spot in
day care? Perhaps you are unaware, but the
costs are generally done on a monthly basis, and yes, you even have
to
pay when the child isn't there.

Child support is based on how much time child is with
her.

Child support is based on the costs and expenses of the children,
with
the assumption that they are living with the
parent who is receiving the child support.

If she has dad care for child while she runs off to do her thing for
the weekend, why would she NOT give dad the money intended to
provide
for the child for that time? Is dad supposed
to pay twice for those days?

So dad wants to be paid for having the kids for the weekend?

Not in the least. He just deserves the "chilc support" that was
already
paid for those days so he can spend it on the
child as was intended.

So you want to see dad have a reduction in child support for spending
additional time with the kids.... but you don't
think mom should get an increase if she spends additional time with the
kids?

You are swimming up stream against the concept of parenting plans and
their
relationship to CS awards. The entire premise behind these plans is to
give
"dad a reduction in child support for spending additional time with the
kids."

Moms can't "get an increase if she spends additional time with the kids"
becasue the basic CS order already covers her spending 100% of the time
with
her kids (unless it has been adjusted by a parenting plan calculation).

The downside for mothers with parenting plans is if a father negotiates a
parenting plan in bad faith. If the father doesn't follow through with
devoting the time agreed to in the parenting plan, the mother still gets a
reduced amount of CS based on the formulas.

The downside for fathers with regular visitation or parenting plans is if
the mother negotiates in bad faith to keep a father's CS payments high and
then "graciously allows" the father more time for parenting without any
CS
adjustment.

That's correct. And if he attempts to get a reduction in "child support",
she will simply end his additional parenting time. Let's not forget that
this all takes place ONLY because the child support industry is run by a
bunch of spineless henpecked men. I could be wrong, but my guess is that if
you take away their big guns, there'd be an ample supply of fathers that
would be MORE than willing to knock their nut to the dirt.



Seems to me that CS paid is really meant for more than just the one-day
spent with dad sort of needs and expenses......
I dunno, maybe my medical insurance can be prorated so that I only pay
insurance for the days that the children spend
with me? What about their clothing? Can that expense be prorated so
that
I only pay for the days they wear the
clothing here?

These are just 2 examples of why I think that this idea of paying dad
for
spending time with the kids won't work.

You are in the minority on this issue. Most of the states have already
changed their CS laws to reward dads for spending time with their kids.

Problem with that is the formula was designed to keep children away from
their fathers; the less time he spends with them the MORE money the mother
gets.
I wager that if the formula was reversed, you would see an awful lot of
fathers having their children for as much time as they desire.
Moral of the story: Free cash is KING!

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

"Chris" wrote in message
news:w5%Xf.2488$qd.2323@fed1read08...

"P. Fritz" paulfritz ATvoyager DOTnet wrote in message
...

"mrbrklyn" wrote in message
oups.com...
So my ex, who decided 3 years ago to stop seeing the children,
should
be rewarded for this selfishness? You sure you
want to promote that idea?

Fathers don't "visit" their children. They raise them. Why do you
make your ex so uncomfortable and broke that he can't raise his own
children? Your the guilty one. Not your ex.


Damn, you have stumpy pegged and you don't even know her history.

It cracks me up. The government folks say that a father has to be
responsible for his children as a parent, yet they have the nads to
label
him as a "visitor"! What's up with THAT?

Stop buying into the government spin. Fathers are not the visitors. The
children are the visitors. Fathers are the family outcasts who had to be
expelled from the family unit. Fathers have no visitation rights. They
have the right to be visited.

I have to admit that even I got sucked into the government deception. Unless
the father is actually going to the mother's home for the visit, you are
correct, it is the children who are visiting the father.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tjEXf.63846$YX1.49726@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:xwzXf.61694$YX1.34233@dukeread06...


Moon Shyne wrote:


"Werebat" wrote in message
news:kkzXf.61681$YX1.20014@dukeread06...

There is a third option, and that is for Mom to ask Dad to take the
kids for a while and then give him back some of
the money he entrusted to her to use for the care of said kids.


Ah - so you join Bob in thinking that dad's have to be paid to spend
time with their own kids.

To "spend time" with his kids, or to "care" for his kids? Which is he
doing when he is watching them?


Both - isn't that what most parents do?

Ah, good. Since you admit that the two are one and the same, it is fair
to say that you believe that parents should
receive no compensation for time they spend caring for their kids.

I don't believe that I promoted the idea of compensation for rearing one's
children. That's a far different topic than
the costs of raising the children, however.

And the mother should be compensated for such "costs" as opposed to the
father being compensated because?



This is an important distinction simply because of connotation. We
never hear about CP mothers being burdened by
having to "spend time" with their kids, and neither do we hear about how
NCP fathers should feel lucky that they are
allowed to "care" for their kids. The connotation is that "spending
time" with one's kids is a privilege, while
"caring" for one's kids is a responsibility. Hence you, Moon, will
always talk about CP mothers "caring" for their
kids and NCP fathers "spending time" with their kids, unless you are
somehow maneuvered into stating things otherwise.

Caring for one's children, spending time with one's children, raising
one's children - it's pretty much all the same
thing.

However, I believe that all of this came up when someone posted about how
dad is "babysitting" his own children.

Do you think the time you spend with your child(ren) is babysitting them?


You probably either won't understand this, or you'll deny it, or both,
but the truth trumps both your lack of
cognizance and your denial.

The truth is that raising one's children is generally not considered
"babysitting" them.......... except by bitter
fathers.

False.




After all, she doesn't view her CS checks as being "paid to watch her
kids", now, does she?


Probably not - it's generally used for expenses from which the
children benefit.

It is? Do you have any proof of this?


Did I offer it up as fact? Or did I say "generally" - perhaps that's a
word you don't understand?

What you said is still right up the "it's generaly used for expenses
from which the children benefit"

Yup - and generally, that's what it is. Last time I checked, it still
costs money to raise children.


Again I ask you, do you have any proof that it is generally used for
expenses from which the children benefit?

Proof? Probably not beyond my own checkbook, which is not open for your
inspection. Do you have any proof to show that
it isn't generally used for the benefit of the children?

The ONLY way to disprove that an event is not taking place is to prove that
it is. Hence, the burden of proof rests with YOU.




You know, like a place to live, food to eat, medical care, school
expenses, clothing, entertainment, sports, etc.
Nor does she ask for more money to cover times that the kids are
supposed to be with an absent dad.

Hmm.

Do you think she SHOULD get more money from a totally absent father?


I suppose it might be appropriate to allow for some modest stipend,
since the father's absense foists his alternate
weekend expenses on her.

Great! Believe it or not, Moon, I agree with you.

But how is this different from the idea that she should get less money
from a father who cares for the children a
greater percentage of the time?

How many different topics are you going to toss into that bass-a-matic?


How can you rationalize believing the one without believing the other?

- Ron ^*^

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tjEXf.63846$YX1.49726@dukeread06...


snip

This is an important distinction simply because of connotation. We
never hear about CP mothers being burdened by
having to "spend time" with their kids, and neither do we hear about
how NCP fathers should feel lucky that they are
allowed to "care" for their kids. The connotation is that "spending
time" with one's kids is a privilege, while
"caring" for one's kids is a responsibility. Hence you, Moon, will
always talk about CP mothers "caring" for their
kids and NCP fathers "spending time" with their kids, unless you are
somehow maneuvered into stating things
otherwise.

Caring for one's children, spending time with one's children, raising
one's children - it's pretty much all the same
thing.

However, I believe that all of this came up when someone posted about
how dad is "babysitting" his own children.

Is that how it was stated? Or was it that mom *used* dad as a
babysitter when it was convenient for her?

Since the response was posted by one of the fathers, perhaps you can
explain the distinction - it certainly wasn't one
of the moms posting about babysitting the children.

As if a mother is going to admit that she views the father as a babysitter.
What's wrong with you?


"Chris" wrote in message
news:sEhXf.2352$qd.358@fed1read08...
"Not to mention that you are a FREE babysitter, and the mother can go out
and
play during this time with the FREE money that is extorted from you."

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
news
"Your point is valid, but some of this debate has to do with perceptions
by
fathers. For instance, regularly scheduled visitation time is the
father's
time. Extra visitation time, or changes to visitation schedules initiated
by the mothers, can be viewed by fathers as extra time with the children
or
free babysitting time."

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
nk.net...
"You are right. Babysitters get paid for performing the service. Fathers
pay to perform it."




--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth