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

Rant--The CP is Not the Judge



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 9th 03, 04:28 AM
frazil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"gini52" wrote in message
...


==
Not necessarily (in theory, anyway). Most family law modifications

are
based
on
"change of circumstance" which can be argued if a CP's mental

condition
and/or lifestyle
has changed/worsened in a way that puts the child at risk. These

changes
are
rarely easy and
shouldn't be--but when well documented circumstances are in front of

the
judge, he/she should be compelled
to act.

So let's say a woman has multiple drug convictions, has never been

married,
quit school in the 9th grade, had her first child at age 15, has had

three
children with three different men, she collects welfare benefits, and

has
never been able to hold down a steady job. How can a father prove

"change
of circumstances" under this very common scenario unless something far

worse
occurs in her life like a felony conviction?

Or let's say a married woman divorces. She shacks up with a drug

pusher
who
is an ex-con, starts doing lots of coke, drives while intoxicated,

gets
tattoed and pierced, and generally goes through a second childhood.

How
can
a father prove "change of circumstances" when it comes down to his

word
against hers? Aren't these lifestyle changes freely made and not an

issue
unless she gets arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of a crime? What

if
the
first offense only results in a suspended sentence with probation and

a
lecture to clean up her act? How many offenses does it take to prove

a
"changes of circumstances"?


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.


And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right

to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass

her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would

you
grant the drug test?


The judge doesn't have to grant it. I watch an attorney pull this very
trick. During the pendent lite hearing held as part of the divorce hearing.
One of the attorneys wanted a clause in the temporary custody order that
said neither parent would do drugs when the child was with them. The other
attorney objected to the clause on the grounds that there was no reason to
require his client to provide such a sample. The first attorney offered to
withdraw the clause if the second attorney's client provided a urine or
blood sample within 24 hours. After consultation with his client the second
attorney agreed. I can only imagine what went on in that consultation.
(the implication is that if you don't do drugs what is the problem. if you
do do drugs you won't take the test).





I don't know whether there has been a recent
increase in violence against children by mothers, but it is

happening
*a
lot*--epidemic, perhaps. This needs to get the
notice of society/courts/legislatures so that mother custody is

*not*
default and serious and equal consideration must be given to both

parents
as
well as enforcing shared physical custody so neither parent is

carrying
the
entire emotional/psychological load of "single parent."

Mothers have always been more violent against their children than

fathers.
But it's not just the violence. Children from mother headed

households
are
far more apt to be in prison, have drug problems, drop out of school,

create
teenage pregnancies, commit suicide, etc. and the courts still don't

act
on
these statistics. These very real statistics get ignored because they

don't
fit the decision-making template that mothers make better, nurturing
parents.


The statistics are ignored because they say nothing about the

individual.
Men are more likely than women to rob banks, but we don't prohibit men

from
entering banks, working in banks, having bank accounts, or even owning
banks. Black men driving a rented car with Florida license plates on
interstate 95 north, are more likely to be transporting drugs than

others,
but you still can't pull them over merely for being black men driving a
rented car with Florida license plates on interstate 95 north.


That is a good description of how the problems get dodged. It's that kind
of rationalization that prevents the statistical trends from being the

basis
for social change. We have reached a point in our society where we fear
using any type of statistical trends because they lead to accusations of
profiling. Instead of focusing on changing the outcomes that are
statistically predictable, we allow them to continue under the premise of
protecting individuals from stereotyping. We create more government
programs to throw money at the issues instead of fixing the underlying
problem areas.


Statistical trands can be useful in certain ways. First, it isn't very
useful in the judicial forum. It is useful in the legislative forum.
Second, statistic regarding the poor outcome of kids from single mothers is
a poor statistic to argue for joint or father custody. Rather the statistic
to use is the extreme minority of custodial fathers to show some sort of
systemic discrimination against males. Then it becomes a civil rights
argument. Rather than an argument to increase support for single mothers
because their kids have poor outcomes.




Otherwise, let the
accountibility fall into the laps of those who refuse to act to

protect
these kids. This needs to be a forefront issue for fathers as it is

one
that
is critically needed and one society will sympathize with. The judge
*will*
listen when society demands it. This is not an issue that can

accomodate
excuses from fathers as to why they didn't try
to get custody. They must be compelled to try--and not give up on

these
kids
at risk. Don't forget--Drew did it and he is not alone.
==
==

Judges and state workers are protected from accountability for their
misdeeds through sovereign immunity granted to public officials. As

long
as they can claim immunity they will never be accountable for their
mistakes.


No they are not protected. But of course misdeeds are in the eye of the
beholder. Malfeasence of office are grounds for dismissal and criminal
prosecution. As long as they act within the bounds of the law they are
protected from civil actions, but if they act illegally they can, and

are,
held criminally responsible. As it should be, they are not held

accountable
to you just because you don't like the decision they made.


I think we are agreeing. Public officials can be held accountable within
the government and can be prosecuted by the government, but private

citizens
have no direct recourse should the public officials screw up. In most
instances, the same people who are responsible for the errors in

government
are responsible for passing judgement on themselves. If they refuse to
acknowledge responsibility, or the legislature and/or the governor refuse

to
accept responsibility, there is no civil lawsuit recourse for losses
suffered by private citizens. The limited legal recourse that is

available
is through appeals to higher courts attempting to show violations of laws

by
the government.

What drives me nuts about how government works is the feds can fine the
states, the states can fine the counties, the counties can fine the

cities,
and the taxpayers at the bottom of the food chain end up losing services
because of the games that get played within the governmental hierarchy to
shift tax dollars around.




  #22  
Old July 9th 03, 05:35 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.


And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting for

a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional right

to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to harass

her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge would

you
grant the drug test?



Yes - I'd order one on both.


So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?

Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
they are part of the problem.


  #23  
Old July 9th 03, 05:58 AM
Tracy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms

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

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.

And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug

test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting

for
a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional

right
to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to

harass
her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge

would
you
grant the drug test?



Yes - I'd order one on both.


So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to

protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?


The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The way
I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then
both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits,
then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done
drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
children.

It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I could
never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game
of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.


Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
they are part of the problem.


Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look
bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to
have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.

I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem
rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and
having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***



  #24  
Old July 9th 03, 07:14 PM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


"Tracy" wrote in message
news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.

And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a drug

test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of waiting

for
a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test is

an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional

right
to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to

harass
her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge

would
you
grant the drug test?


Yes - I'd order one on both.


So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to

protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to diffuse

an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?


The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The

way
I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs, then
both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug habits,
then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have done
drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
children.


I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no similar
issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal theory
that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I am
getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back on
the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws I
see in family law.


It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I

could
never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a game
of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.


Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle was

to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly that

is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are told
they are part of the problem.


Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party look
bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want to
have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.


So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If one
party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a mutual
restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
household as well as one with violence?


I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no problem
rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs and
having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.


I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence to
remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
income, is doing drugs?


  #25  
Old July 9th 03, 07:24 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.

And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a

drug
test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of

waiting
for
a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test

is
an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional

right
to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than

the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to

harass
her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge

would
you
grant the drug test?


Yes - I'd order one on both.

So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a

legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to

protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to

diffuse
an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?


The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The

way
I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs,

then
both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug

habits,
then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have

done
drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
children.


I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no

similar
issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal

theory
that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I

am
getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back

on
the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws

I
see in family law.


It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I

could
never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a

game
of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.


Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle

was
to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly

that
is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are

told
they are part of the problem.


Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party

look
bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want

to
have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.


So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If

one
party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a

mutual
restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
household as well as one with violence?


I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no

problem
rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs

and
having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.


I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence

to
remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
income, is doing drugs?



Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug use?
The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic.

T


  #26  
Old July 9th 03, 09:15 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...


Who would take care of those kids who parents test positive for drug

use?

In order of my personal priorities: fathers, close relatives, foster care,
"clean" welfare mothers who get additional benefits for acting as

surrogate
mothers, adoptive parents, orphanages.


As that sounds all fine and dandy, but in some areas, the whole family is
just as screwed up as the CP. Father could be a drug addict, parents could
be drug addicts, ect. Foster care.... well, sorry to say but ask around.
Foster care isn't all its cracked up to be. Sometimes foster parents are
worse then the real parents.


BTW - Your question implies drug addicted parents do a good job of taking
care of children. I disagree.


How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say
that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken
from them.

The goverment knows it couldn't handle that sort of epidemic.


That thinking is why government doesn't act on a lot of issues. Many
government programs create unintended consequences. When the elephant in

the
living room is too big (drug addicted welfare recipients), the thinking

goes
nothing that can be done to remove the elephant (take the children out of

a
harmful environment), so ignoring the elephant (doing nothing) is the best
option.



I am not saying the government is RIGHT, I am saying that is the way it is.
Hopefully we will live in a society where the goverment wouldn't even have
to step in to take care of the kids.




  #27  
Old July 10th 03, 07:02 AM
Bob Whiteside
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


"Tiffany" wrote in message
...


How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would say
that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids taken
from them.


So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too
much and the reason to take their children away from them?

Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their children
about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility?


  #28  
Old July 10th 03, 12:54 PM
frazil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:6iNOa.10588$GL4.3682@rwcrnsc53...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:cUKOa.13495$H17.5108@sccrnsc02...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"frazil" wrote in message
...


If she's on cocaine, ask for a drug test.

And her attorney stalls and stalls and then says if you want a

drug
test
you'll have to get a court order. Then after 2-3 months of

waiting
for
a
hearing her attorney argues forcing her to submit to a drug test

is
an
invasion of her right to privacy, could violate her Constitutional

right
to
not incriminate herself, and the request has no basis other than

the
husband's suspicions and it represents an attempt on his part to

harass
her
without any proof such a test is necessary. If you were the judge

would
you
grant the drug test?


Yes - I'd order one on both.

So let me ask a semi-legal question. Should the disposition of a

legal
motion filed by one party be applied to both parties by the court to

protect
the accused party? Isn't this tactic just a way for a judge to

diffuse
an
issue to make it appear both parties are at fault?


The only parties I'd be interested in protecting are the children. The

way
I view it is there exist a chance that if one parent is doing drugs,

then
both are. If custody is to be determined based on a parent's drug

habits,
then it is wise to have both parents tested. If one is shown to have

done
drugs and the other not - then it would firm up who should have the
children.


I agree with your resposne, but it doesn't address the questions I asked
you. The concept I am getting at is called "having clean hands." If a
party asks the court for help with an issue they had better have no

similar
issues (i.e. clean hands) going into court. Also, there is the legal

theory
that it takes a motion before the court to get the court to act. What I

am
getting at is the courts act as if a motion from one party reflects back

on
the moving party and the other party gets the benefit of a neutral ruling
without having to file their own motion. That describes one of the flaws

I
see in family law.


It kind of reminds me of a man I use to date back in the late 80's. I

could
never understand why he didn't go for custody of his son. After all the
mother had a huge cocaine and crank habit. I found out some three years
later that he was doing drugs while we were dating. He never told me
because he knew I would have left him. Now I tell people to not use the
drug trump card if you are doing drugs - because then it turns into a

game
of the "lesser of the two evils" or both may end up losing custody.


Why would any father file a motion to modify if the legal principle

was
to
apply the issues back on him for filing the motion? Quite frankly

that
is
what is wrong with the family law system. Fathers who speak up are

told
they are part of the problem.


Bob - have you ever heard of someone who lies to make the other party

look
bad? To some people it is the principle behind it. They wouldn't want

to
have the test because they would never do drugs. To some they have
something to hide. The best thing to do is just order both to have the
test. Big deal... if you have nothing to hide you'll come out clean.


So using this logic why do judges sign ex parte restraining orders? If

one
party claims abuse or fear of abuse wouldn't the court want to sign a

mutual
restraining order and only after hearing from the other party? Why two
standards? Aren't the children at risk similarly in a drug related
household as well as one with violence?


I was tested for my current employer. Personally I would have no

problem
rolling up my sleeve to be tested if asked to do so. Not doing drugs

and
having the ability to prove it is something I'm happy with.


I'm squeaky clean too, but the concept of having to prove your innocence

to
remain employed is different than how issues with drugs and children are
handled. Look at all the uproar that occurs when people suggest welfare
recipients should have to pass periodic drug screens to continue getting
their benefits. 50% of welfare recipients couldn't pass the drug screens,
so we leave the children in their care. Why two standards? Aren't the
children equally at risk when their primary care parent, regardless of
income, is doing drugs?


Because the purpose is different. The argument behind testing welfare
recipients is that they are recieving a government benefit. High income
parents are not. As a condition of revieving that benefit the government
has the right and obligation to see that the benefit provided is not going
towards anything illegel. Drug testing welfare recipients is not for the
protection of children, rather it is for the protection of the tax paying
public.


  #29  
Old July 10th 03, 03:01 PM
Tiffany
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Rant--The CP is Not the Judge/Violent Moms


Bob Whiteside wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...


How did my question imply that? I think you misread. Although I would

say
that depends alot on the parent and the drug. The question was pretty
general though I will say at this point that I don't think just because
someone smokes some pot once and awhile they should have their kids

taken
from them.


So how much dope should a parent be allowed to smoke before it becomes too
much and the reason to take their children away from them?


Typically smoking pot isn't dangerous. Though I would suspect it would
become apparent if a parent is smoking to much pot. If they are so out of it
they don't feed the kids.... if they are so out of it and driving with the
kids.


Can a parent who has a track record of being a pot head teach their

children
about the dangers of drug use and have any credibility?



Depends, but that is not the discusion here. I thought this was about
welfare recipents getting tested for drug use and losing their kids.

But to answer, I would say no and yes. A parent could say they know from
personal use that it is not healthy to smoke pot because this or that happen
to them.


 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Judge: Child's Removal Was Unnecessary wexwimpy Foster Parents 2 August 6th 04 09:20 PM
DCF wrkrs & perjury Judge writes DCF wrong. U trust them? Fern5827 Spanking 0 August 6th 04 03:04 PM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane General 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane Spanking 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM
Judge in GA will take LONG LEAVE-investigation continues Kane Foster Parents 0 January 12th 04 06:02 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 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.