If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message ps.com... Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message glegroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. Actually I think that I have been taken well out of context, the fathers(or mothers) that dodge support and push their children into poverty are *******s. The fathers(or mothers) that abuse their wifes(husbands) are *******s. That is only a small percentage of the total, a very small percentage. The fact that the system has to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible is not because good fathers should be pentalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good fathers from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad fathers to walk away and being overly harsh on the good fathers, I freely and willing choice the harsh system. I will have to see what studies have been done, my thinking comes out of years of working with these children, but all of the percentages I can think of were given to me by social workers (and I am aware they are not the most unbiased of sources). And like I said the plural of anectdote is not evidence so despite the many occasions were it was blindly obvious that poverty was a major contruting factor to the abuse of a paticular child, I will see if I can locate outside verification. Since you have apparently already done a review of the available data maybe you can give an actual site. If you possess the information please share. See Fourth National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre...cid/index.html There is lots of data in this report but it doesn't get tied together into the kinds of conclusions being expressed by you as having come from social workers. There are sections on "Family Structure" and "Family Income" but the economic data is characterized as being questionable because of so many cases with missing data on income factors. What we do know is the very low income brackets where abuse and neglect occurs the most are also public money (welfare) cases. In those cases CS does not go to the family. Instead, the family receives the public money benefits and the CS paid is paid to the government to reimburse the public money outlay. Whether CS is paid, or not paid, the family gets the same amount of welfare benefits. A way to check this is to look at the annual Census report on CS. The average CS award for a below poverty parent is $2328 or $194 per month. Those CS awards would have to go up 8 to 10 fold to cover average public money benefits. The payment in full of CS at $194 per month is not going to change the family's income. The only time CS helps a family in poverty is when the CS award exceeds the public money benefits received and the amount over the "current" benefits gets passed through to the family. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/child...ldsupport.html See table 4. A very few foster parents abuse the kids, The fact that the system needs to be harsh in order to get as many of those *******s as possible is not because good foster parenmts should be penalized, its that not enough resources exist to weed the good foster parents from the bad and that given the choice between allowing the small percentage of bad foster parents to abuse the kids and being overly harsh on the good good foster parents, I freely and willing choice the harsh system. LOL, I know it was meant to be an attack but you dont know how right you are. The foster system is a lot like the child support system, the only difference is that everyone enters by their own choice and the state pays you rather than the other way around. It took me and my wife a year to get licenced, and my file is about two inches thick, an inch or so that I wrote myself. I was required to have a psycological evaluation, multiple references, and full FBI background check. I have had birth parents make accusations of abuse against me for every bump and bruise that their 3yo gets while in my care. Each accusation is a mandatory investigation from CPS, so between that and fact that I have had 21 placements I know most of the staff of CPS on a first name basis. My house can be visited at any time without warning or explaination, they can request my credit and bank history at anytime without warning or explaination. Judges make decisions that seem to appear out of their asses without concern for the actually situation the child is in. Decent parents are kept away from their kids while the dumbasses get custody returned. The social workers believe the kids to the point that you just want to scream "The kid's manipulating you, ****wit!!" And I continue to do this and support the system even while believing the system needs a ton of work. Of course the $0.50/hour must be the reason since you would never believe that I actually might be consitant in my thinking and actions. Ghostwriter |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
CasualObserver wrote: ghostwriter wrote: CasualObserver wrote: ghostwriter wrote: wrote: Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia. My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this person who shares his last name. It's just sad. Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he doesnt really seem to care. I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would be very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont necessarily need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer. If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his son. Ghostwriter The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if he's not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father child-support services shill, then let's go... Alright lets go, I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP. My ex's face, no. Experiences, most certainly. I'm from a divorced family and also went through the family court system as an adult in a different state than I currently reside. Over the past few decades I have operated several family owned businesses and have seen well over a thousand employees come and go. Some of the employees were in high school, most in college or older, and collectively with a wide range of family situations. I would hear family issues personally or through management of just about anything you can imagine. My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments. Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag, THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE. If the child's last name was causing a lot of teasing at school or something then I could see the child being upset. However, if the child was inquiring why his name is different then I'm very sure most mom's could explain it in a way that the child wouldn't feel traumatized. We both don't really know for sure what the mother's real intentions are. But if I were to read her like a poker hand, it would be that she is upset that the father doesn't visit and wants to get his attention, punish him for it, or a little of both. She also indicated her and the father get along for the most part and you know the relationship could easily be damaged. Maybe you think she should thank you for your prison guard approach? I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories of sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS, they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather than in my care. It's just plain wrong to punish all fathers because of the horrible acts of a few. Your logic is sick and twisted. Interesting but the consequences of easing the current system would be that those children near poverty would be pushed over the edge. Thats the simple truth, you advocate a position that would likley cause the neglect, physical and sexual abuse of at risk children and you have the balls to say my logic is twisted. So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching. Yes I could tell a 10 year old girl that the entire world shouldn't have be punished because of the terrible acts committed against her by her daddy. I had a similar conversation several years back with a few college girls. One went on to live a very happy and normal life, the others still struggle with it a bit. I respect that (regardless if you care about my respect) it shows a conistancy that most people lack. The next level of that question is if you were faced with a child who was molested after your policies forced her and her mother into poverty. If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown. Please by all means punish the actual abusers. Hence my position that fathers rights must be coupled with social services/enforcement. That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father. ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL. Before the system was invented, broken homes were rare. Now the more money the system gets, the bigger the problem gets. The system needs fixing not the majority of fathers. Correlation is not causation. Prior to the systems invention birth control, woman's rights, high average education levels, minority rights, etc simply didnt exist. Its a huge jump to say that the child support isnt just a symptom of the larger problems. Frankly IMHO the problem is greed and the inability to surrender your personal desires, selfish revenge and greed certainly seem to be both the cause of the problems in most families and the cause of most problems in divorces. And selfishness and greed outdate child support by thousands of years. IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Did it ever occur to you that many children grow-up fatherless because daddy was beaten down by government? It's time once again to allow good fathers to be fathers. Children grew up fatherless before government was invented, and yes I can see that a portion of fathers are becoming resentful and opting out of being fathers because of the system. Of course any father that walks out because of what someone other than the kids did to him, might qualify as a average father but good doesnt seem to be the right word. Ghostwriter PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases. Best wishes to you and your family. P.S. My comment about the mother asking for the name change as an admission of her not wanting the father involved in the childs life...it wasn't an attack on her, it was on you. I missed it completely, I assumed you were just trying to button hole my arguements which hardly qualifies as an attack. The OP stated that father wasnt invovled, so the name change was more a official recognition of an existing situation. But that would have required you to have believed her, which as I stated before was a extremely unlikley event. Ghostwriter |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. Ghostwriter |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
P Fritz wrote: ghostwriter wrote: P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message glegroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist money = incentive of more of the same Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT society) pay for the needs of the children. I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true socialism or libertarianism. Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more concerned about protecting their children than they are about money. Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however. Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor the idea is laughable. Ghostwriter a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. Ghostwriter |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: Considering what you wrote about not caring about the fathers that are hurt by the system, my wish for you is that you find yourself (or someone you love) in a situation where you have done nothing wrong, but you are being egregiously harmed because other people have done something wrong. When you have actually experienced that which you are so casually dismissing as being worth the price, then, perhaps, you can come back and share. Care is a difficult term, it is not that I do not care for fathers rights it is simply that an increase in father's rights at the expense of the most at risk population of children is an EXTREMELY poor trade. Why does there have to be a tradeoff? Why can't the rights of men be protected without harming children? Do you really think it is fair that a man is tricked into believing that he is a father, then forced to continue paying child support when it is proved that he is NOT the father? Do you really think it is fair that a woman can hide the fact that a man is a father until years after the birth of the child, then go back and demand not only current support, but arrearages for all the years the man did not pay when he was not aware of his fatherhood? Are these the unfairnesses that you feel should continue? If so, why? We as a society have to decide what things are more important to protect. Frankly the interests of the children are far more important than the interests of adults who engaged in consentual activity that resulted in the child. The only blameless one in this equation is the child. The point of arrears and false paternity are good ones, and courts should take them into account but compared to the interests of the child they are small potatoes. Laws have started to appear the recognize the rights of stepparents and grandparents, and with them come the unwillingness to allow non-bio men who have acted as fathers to simple exit the picture, even when they were acting as fathers under false pretense. The stupidity of the mother does not annul the child rights, and that applies to arrears and all the rest of it. I personally favor joint custody, with obligation to meet costs based on the relative income of the individuals. But my disapproval with the systems failures does not extend to dismantling it without a clear idea of what is going to take its place, and so far nothing seems to be put forward other than libertarian pipe-dreams. I would wish for you to work with some victimized children, then come back and tell us if you getting rid of your obligations is worth their fathers escaping their's. Well, Ghostwriter, you have your wish. I have worked with such children. And still do. This year I have 2 such children in my classroom. I don't think that money is going to solve the problems. I think that only education is going to do that. Not the education of the children in school--although that is also important. But the education of the mothers who are making choices that are not necessarily good for their children. Help the mothers help themselves--don't just throw money at them and see that as a solution. I could tell you stories about what I have seen that would curl your eyebrows. And I don;t think that money has ever been the solution. Neither is taking away the rights of the innocent. I do not think you have thought this through thoroughly enough. Everyone's rights exist in competition with everyones elses, nothing is going to change that. Like I have been saying the whole time fathers rights must be coupled with social services or else you will see an increased rate of families failing. Thats not about guilt or innocence its about placing value on those kids. I dont doubt that we are both capable of telling stories that would the other sick. But money would certainly get those 2 kids of yours in to see a doctor, therapist, counciler, etc. Money would mean Mom would be at work less and be more able to supervise and assist in that therapy. Money might enable Mom to finish a degree and purchase housing in a better neighborhood. No money isnt a cure-all but it does open options that dont exist otherwise. And yes money might just allow Mom to buy drugs for herself and the abusive boyfriend. Education is always a wonderful idea, parenting education for high schoolers, optional education for new parents, court ordered education for people seeking divorce, court ordered education for both parties post divorce would be a great start. Ghostwriter "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... CasualObserver wrote: ghostwriter wrote: wrote: Thanks Ghost writer. I live in Georgia. My ex and I do not have personality issues or anything. He just doesnt want to do anything with his son because he choses not to tell the world (and his girlfriends) that he has a son. I dont have a problem with it...we are divorced now. But I am concerned about this name thing affecting my child who feels strange because he has never met this person who shares his last name. It's just sad. Personally, if you have the money an hour with an attorney would be best. If not I would likley file for the name change since he doesnt really seem to care. I cant imainge a way that a judge could use to make that sufficient reason to terminate child support and I suspect that the judge would be very annoyed if your ex tried that tactic. But judges dont necessarily need reasons so thats why I suggest seeing the lawyer. If your ex allows the name change it would be an admission that he wants nothing to do with his son, but his financial obligations have nothing to do with his failure to meet personal obligations to his son. Ghostwriter The mother asking for the name change is an admission by her that she doesn't want the father to have anything to do with his son. I can't imagine that it would be held against him if he cooperates. And if he's not visiting maybe she has done something really bad to the father. So if you want to continue making accusations like a typical anti-father child-support services shill, then let's go... Alright lets go, I dont know either person from Adam so I assume that the OP was telling a minimually skewed version of the facts, you on the other hand took your personal experiences and pinned your ex's face on the OP. My understanding based on the OP was that the child is old enough to wonder why their name isnt the same as mom's and that this bothers them. Dad hasnt visited in a year but has maintained payments. Assuming that this is true then, AND I HAVE LITTLE REASON TO ASSUME OTHERWISE, then no earthly reason exists that this woman cant file for a name change and give her ex an oppurtunity to challange it if he wishes. Your assumtion is that since this is a custodial mother getting child support payments that she is some kind of monster hag, THE PLURAL OF ANECTDOTE IS NOT EVIDENCE. I am a long time foster parent, I specialize in girls with histories of sexual abuse. Dont ever expect anything but contempt if you attempt to tell me fathers are the ones being mistreated. Yes the system IS far too tough on the good fathers but that is simply because the good fathers seldom have a F_#$ING CLUE about the people it is trying to get to. The truth is that while almost all of the kids that walk though my door are there because they were neglected/abused by their MOTHERS, they or their mothers were almost always abused by their FATHERS prior to the complete failure of the situation. Mom then fled the into poverty. If even a small percentage of those FATHERS paid their child-support those children would be in private therapy etc. rather than in my care. So yes the systems is too tough, boo f@#$ing hoo. Have a conversation with a 10year old about what her daddy did to her then come bitching. If the cost of getting a few of those *******s to support their kids is that the policy is harsh, I consider it cheap(and will vote to keep it that way). It also is far cheaper for us as taxpayers since the failure of a household increases hugely the chance those kids will end up in prison or having kids in the foster system once they are grown. That is not to say that there arent a thousand ways the systems could be made better, but I am tired of getting the same kids back every few months because the system was too EASY on a BAD father. ANY INCREASE IN FATHERS RIGHTS MUST BE COUPLED WITH AN INCREASE IN SOCIAL SERVICES. OTHERWISE MORE FAMILIES WILL FAIL AND WE AS A SOCIETY WILL BE STUCK WITH THE (MUCH HIGHER) BILL. IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter PS I am the father of two children by birth and just sent hold my 21st foster placment. I expect to continue fostering for the rest of my life and to adopt any child that goes permanent custody while in my care. I am however 100% in favor of reunification outside of the worst cases. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... P Fritz wrote: ghostwriter wrote: P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message glegroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist money = incentive of more of the same Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT society) pay for the needs of the children. This opinion is not based on facts or reality. The current CS system has its origin in old Soviet Russian Law and is modeled after how the Soviet Communist/Socialists handled family law matters. It is just not intellectually honest to say a system that is based on class warfare between the genders and redistribution of wealth is somehow not a socialist program. I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true socialism or libertarianism. How about offering some proof to back up this statement? Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more concerned about protecting their children than they are about money. Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however. That's not what the research shows. Check out Maragret Brinig's quantification of family law issues with economic data. She concluded the assurance of getting child custody (an emotional motivator) and the predictability of child support amounts (a financial motivator) are the two factors women rely on to breakup their realtionships and force men out of their children's lives. Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor the idea is laughable. We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the more money they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make. The poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their single motherhood. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? It is not "allowing everyone to opt out", it's allowing those who choose to be supportive of their children the right and ability to do that without untold governmental interferrence. It *won't* solve it but it would allow the focus to be put on those who try to avoid it. As it is, those who willingly pay are being touted as money being forcefully collected, which it isn't. All the while, those who are adamant about not paying still aren't. By using the draconian methods to force money from one adult to another, which may or may not benefit the children, many see the falicy and opt out. I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. Not only does it not work, it causes most of the problems to begin with, IMO. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Then you haven't been listening. Most parent, even fathers, want to support their children but when they are removed by force and prevented from being a parent, you get a result that can be forecast with relative accuracy. The current child support system is the problem; parents not fully supporting their children is just a symptom that in a large part results from the problem. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. It *would* be a good trade if the C$ were mandated for the children's needs. Forcing one parent to pay money that can be used for anything at all does nothing for the children unless the receptient is honest, which many are not. If, and that's a big "if", the C$ could only be used for or by the children, more would be willing to play the game according to the rules. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Then you feel that *all* intact parents should be mandated by the court to pay 100% of the state's guideline amounts toward their children? This is part of the problem. Parents, lacking a government mandate (court order), have the ability to spend less than the official guideline amount on their children as they see fit as long as the children are not legally neglected, which is a very low standard in any state. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. Not necessarily. When fathers are in an intact family, most choose to fully support their families, including children, without court orders. By giving NCPs the same rights and responsibilities as the CP, equality reigns and everyone, including children win. Something like 85% of children raised without a father present in the home develop behavorial problems. Juveniles committed to juvenile prisons in Texas: 1% are from single father homes, 20% are from 2-parent homes, 79% are from fatherless homes. Single father homes constitute 4% of households, single mother homes constitute 37%, and two parent homes constitute 59%. The children of single mother households are 8.5 times more likely to be in juvenile prisons than children of single father households. Children of single father households are 35% less likely than the children of two parent households to be in juvenile prisons. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Apparently not. Phil #3 Ghostwriter |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
"ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... Chris wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message oups.com... P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message egroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, a lot of the abuse occurs as a result of a mother being hesitant to leave a situation out of fear of destitution. I very easily comprehend the possiblity of placing with fathers, and frankly in the absence of abuse I see no reason not to. The arguement that mothers are somehow better able to care for children doesnt really make any sense to me. My point was that harsh assumtions about child support and putting the burden of proof on the NCP insures that the households on the edge have more money and therefor more options. No it doesn't, ghost. Those who want to evade the system will do so. It's easy enough to get an order, but getting the money is a totally different thing. It's the ones who *don't* try to evade the order who are getting hammered. And how is that helping at all? And how is allowing everyone to opt out going to solve that? I can see your arguement, that the cost isnt worth the benifit, that the system does not work. The problem is that in the absence of any alternative the existing system works a whole lot better than anything else I have ever heard. Impoverished children is one of the primary causes of society's major problems(a completely different discussion but I can support that position if need-be), so taking money from their FATHERS to relieve a portion of that is a GOOD trade. Yes it sucks, and no the system doesnt work that well, but if the only alternative you have to suggest is allowing people to operate on an honor system, I will never willing support that. Any increase in fathers rights must be coupled with an increase in social services, and/or support investigation and enforcement, otherwise the problems at the bottom of the spectrum will get worst. And when families fail the costs to society in terms of both money and quality of life are far higher than when a grown man does without. I fully support the idea of joint custody with a minumim of child support, I fully support the idea of fathers custody when the situation calls for it. The assumtion that the mother is the most fit to care of a child has never made any sense to me. But that doesnt change the fact that a child does have a legitimate right to the support of it's NCP and that not enforcing that support is the MORE expensive and damning choice in the long run. Spoken like a true stalinist. Ghostwriter LMFAO. your kidding me right? Have you ever read history? Read about Stalin, then read it again. As far as accusing me of being a socailist, if not being a libertarian means I am a socialist I suppose it it true. Libertarians are the worst bunch of polly-annas I have ever know. Personally I (and most of the country to judge by the last election) believe that a composite is the most logical and fair way, even if it doesnt fit well into a black and white worldview. Ghostwriter It doesn't matter *how many* believe a lie, it remains a lie. Phil #3 |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Name change because parent not visiting child
Bob Whiteside wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote in message ups.com... P Fritz wrote: ghostwriter wrote: P Fritz wrote: Bob Whiteside wrote: "P Fritz" wrote in message ... teachrmama wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in message glegroups.com... DB wrote: "ghostwriter" wrote in IF WE AS A SOCIETY EASE THE BURDEN OFF OF THE GOOD FATHERS MORE OF THE BAD ONES WILL SLIP THROUGH. THE PRICE TO SOCIETY IS FAR GREATER IF THAT HAPPENS THAN FORCING GROWN MEN TO DO WITHOUT. YES IT SUCKS, BUT THAT IS THE SIMPLE TRUTH. Ghostwriter Yes Comrade, treat all men the same regardless of guilt or innocence! SO you think sending enough money to these abused kid's mothers is the solution to broken homes? No, I think that forcing the *******s to pay a portion of their child support is an excellent way to protect their children from future abuse, by stressed out mothers, abusive boyfriend/roomates, dirt cheap babysitters. Do you really think that having a bit more money is going to stop the mom from having a boyfriend? From needing a babysitter? Do you really think that "cheap" babysitters are more prone to be abusive than more costly ones? Do you think that, perhaps, the mom's choices may have led to thier difficulties? Why pin it all on the father? Seems that "ghostwriter" is part of the women=victim crowd. I'm still trying to figure out if Ghost thinks men are "*******s" or the foster care children are "*******s." But I wasn't surprised to hear another argument about more money would solve all children's problems. Most Socialists believe more class warfare and more money changing hands will fix every problem. Too bad all the research and social science proves the other side of this issue. The guarantee of CS money is the financial motivator that causes women to want to walk away from relationships and push men out of their children's lives. Perhaps Ghost can offer some actual proof as to why tossing money at societal problems will make them better and get beyond making wild assumptions that fit an agenda. You have to wonder who anyone can make the connect of "more money" will reduce abusive boyfriends. Of course he cannot comprehend the real solution, placing kids with their fathers...which eliminates the greatest threat, an unrelated male living in the household with the mother. In our society money=options, BWAHAHAHAHHA .... typical socialist money = incentive of more of the same Do you have the slightest clue what a socialist is? This post certainly doesnt suggest you do. A socialist would ask society to pay for the kids needs (get it, socialist/society), a child support advocate is specifically stating a desire to have the FATHERS (and thus NOT society) pay for the needs of the children. This opinion is not based on facts or reality. The current CS system has its origin in old Soviet Russian Law and is modeled after how the Soviet Communist/Socialists handled family law matters. It is just not intellectually honest to say a system that is based on class warfare between the genders and redistribution of wealth is somehow not a socialist program. Child support laws are based on English poor laws that pre-date the soviets by centurys. Thus the fact that we are one of the only countries in the world that seize child support to repay welfare. The orginal formulas were taken from the Soviets. Thats about as socialist as orgainized labor, argueable but not really true. http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.u...istory_usa.htm Apparently about a third of states still use modified versions of the soviet standards, the other two thirds use versions of williams model, most are currently modeled on European countries like Sweden that take into account entitlements like welfare. Thus a composite system. I like the composite system since it prevents the worst of abuses on both sides. The problem is that it requires constant evaluation of where the priorites are so that it can be adjusted and thus is prone to abuse. The abuse however is mild compared to the abuse of true socialism or libertarianism. How about offering some proof to back up this statement? The failings of true socialism I suspect we can agree on, as far as libertarianism the fact that no nation has ever been stupid enough to allow such an abomination speaks volumes. The closest example available would be the gilded age in the US. Twain wrote rather elequently about the abuses of that paticular time. Money isnt the problem by the way its the love of money, and that was a problem long before child support. In order to prevent women being forced to stay in a bad marriage alimony and child support were invented. Greedy woman have certainly used that fact to get revenge on husbands. But the majority of women and especially poor woman are more concerned about protecting their children than they are about money. Money and security go hand in hand when you are poor however. That's not what the research shows. Check out Maragret Brinig's quantification of family law issues with economic data. She concluded the assurance of getting child custody (an emotional motivator) and the predictability of child support amounts (a financial motivator) are the two factors women rely on to breakup their realtionships and force men out of their children's lives. Interesting I havent found the study you are talking about is it one of these. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/A...m?per_id=53766 Everything I read in "These boots are made for walking" seems to indicate that custody is the primary determining factor but that the precence of children significantly decreases the chances a woman will file for divorce. Joint custody has almost no impact but if a woman assumes that her husband will get the kids she will almost never file, despite the fact the men are seldom if ever awared child support. That sort of supports your argument but only in the sense that the availablity of child support compensates for the other negative aspects of divorce. She makes some interesting points about quasi-rents that would suggest that women filing in the middle years of a marriage almost always do so to escape a bad marriage, not because of a perception of being financially better off. Coupled with the statistics she quotes on the damage divorce does to a woman's finances and the damage it does to children, her quai-rent theory would strongly suggest that child support is an enabler but only if the situation is already bad. More likley is that custody is the primary determining factor and that child support is intended to allow a woman to continue the quasi-rents that are necessary for the raising of children. Are you really foolish enough to think that women are entering into single motherhood primarily out of greed? I could see that in the richest situations, but the average seems doubtful, and with the poor the idea is laughable. We pay women to whelp children. The more children they have, the more money they get. The more men they have children with, the more they make. The poorest women have the largest safety net system to support their single motherhood. No we pay because if we dont those kids will be born anyway and will become the next crop of felons. We pay because during the depression kids starved. And we pay because enough of us are intelligent enough to realize that getting kids out of poverty will make us far more than it costs us in the long run. Ghostwriter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NFJA Position Statement: Child Support Enforcement Funding | Dusty | Child Support | 0 | March 2nd 06 12:49 AM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | Foster Parents | 3 | December 8th 03 11:53 PM |
Kids should work. | ChrisScaife | Foster Parents | 16 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Dennis was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 63 | November 17th 03 10:12 PM |
Helping Your Child Be Healthy and Fit sX3#;WA@'U | John Smith | Kids Health | 0 | July 20th 03 04:50 AM |