Runnin from Custodial Parent

"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

snip for length


I gave options of what to do if one institution fails. I am sorry you
are too much of a moron to comprehend what was written.

Take a step back, and please don't throw the word moron around so easily.
Several of the posters you are communicating with are no longer even in
the
child support system. Their children are grown and gone from home--and
they
did everything you suggested and more during the decades they were caught
up
in the system--to no avail. It sounds good on paper--but it does not
work
in reality because of how the family court system is set up. You sound
very
idealistic right now. It would be nice if things really worked that
way--but they don't.

If both of the parents would communicate with each other BEFORE
getting the courts involved, there would be less need for the CSEA,
and judges to be involved. I notice a lot of bad mouthing on BOTH
sides going on. Wouldn't it be easier for both parties to get together
and work something out?

Sure it would. But why would the person most likely to benefit from
involving the courts (usually the woman) settle for less than all she could
get? Why work it out if you can get more from not working it out?

I don't want them to raise the amount, in fact, I don't even want his
money. I know in the end, he will be on his death bed and have a
lifetime of regrets. I think it has more to do with revenge and hurt
feelings rather than what is important, which is the child.

It is nice that you feel that way. But there are far too many who do not
feel that way at all.

I am so
glad that my mom and dad taught me the value of a days worth of work,
because from what I have been reading, a lot of the NCP are mad
because the CP won't work and do thier share.

I could introduce you to a few--and they are adamant that they should be
supported by the NCP because, after all, they have the arduous task of
raising the child.

I'm not saying that all of the CP are in it for revenge, but I can see
why a lot of these NCP are feeling that they are getting ripped off.
If everyone would put the child above all, where would they all stand?

Those are the cases you do not see in court. It only takes one to create a
disagreement. And if you will get more for disagreeing, why agree?

I'm not trying to say I'm better than the next person, but a parent
needs to work in order to show thier children how to make a living.
How will my son know how to be a man, and take responsibility if I
don't teach him?

Didn't you say you are married? Isn't his stepfather helping with that
task?

If the CP doesn't work, then child support should not be granted to
them. If the CP does hold down a job, and is paying thier share of the
childs financial responsibility, then the NCP should pay the child
support.

If the CP doesn't work, the child should go to the NCP.

"DB" wrote in message
t...
How will my son know how to be a man, and take responsibility if I
don't teach him?


Women will never be a man's equal as long as they rely on a man's money to
support themselves!

So I'm assuming that you feel that men who rely on women's money to support
themselves are not equal to women. Right?

"teachrmama" wrote in

And why do you so easily discount the experiences that people here share?

Like all selfish people that are not effected by the problem, they are
heartless and have no compassion for those that can't financially afford the
draconian laws put in place to oppress a targeted segment of society.

Their solution, once a person is tagged with the NCP label, they deserve
no quality of life, they only exist to pay money and should have two jobs to
do their bidding.

All of thepopulation squealed when gas reached over $3.00 per gallon which
maybe increases their travel expenses by $40. Imagine if they were all told
to pay $800 per month because some pressure group moved a government body to
do so?

"teachrmama" wrote in

So I'm assuming that you feel that men who rely on women's money to
support themselves are not equal to women. Right?

It disgusts me to see a man come on hear to snivel over a few dollars and
look for handouts!
I feel embarrassed for any man that has to rely on a woman to sustain him,
that goes for these young men that have to live with their parents becuase
they can't afford rent. It's ironic these parents are often the same people
that tell other people to get off their deadbeat ass and pay extortionate
money for CS.

I laugh when I read about politicians trying to end child poverty by trying
to legislate it out of existance!

Since when does a child have a bank account to measure their wealth? LOL

Many people grow up in poverty and lead a far richer life than the spoiled
brats that can't fend for themselves and want for nothing. As they say,
it's all about money, nothing to do with children!

"DB" wrote in message
...

"teachrmama" wrote in

So I'm assuming that you feel that men who rely on women's money to
support themselves are not equal to women. Right?

It disgusts me to see a man come on hear to snivel over a few dollars and
look for handouts!
I feel embarrassed for any man that has to rely on a woman to sustain him,
that goes for these young men that have to live with their parents becuase
they can't afford rent. It's ironic these parents are often the same
people that tell other people to get off their deadbeat ass and pay
extortionate money for CS.

I laugh when I read about politicians trying to end child poverty by
trying to legislate it out of existance!

Since when does a child have a bank account to measure their wealth? LOL

Many people grow up in poverty and lead a far richer life than the spoiled
brats that can't fend for themselves and want for nothing. As they say,
it's all about money, nothing to do with children!

Unfortunately, that is too, too true.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 8, 9:33 am, "teachrmama" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in
oglegroups.com...

snip for length


I gave options of what to do if one institution fails. I am sorry you
are too much of a moron to comprehend what was written.

Take a step back, and please don't throw the word moron around so
easily.
Several of the posters you are communicating with are no longer even in
the
child support system. Their children are grown and gone from home--and
they
did everything you suggested and more during the decades they were
caught
up
in the system--to no avail. It sounds good on paper--but it does not
work
in reality because of how the family court system is set up. You sound
very
idealistic right now. It would be nice if things really worked that
way--but they don't.

If both of the parents would communicate with each other BEFORE
getting the courts involved, there would be less need for the CSEA,
and judges to be involved. I notice a lot of bad mouthing on BOTH
sides going on. Wouldn't it be easier for both parties to get together
and work something out?

Sure it would. But why would the person most likely to benefit from
involving the courts (usually the woman) settle for less than all she
could
get? Why work it out if you can get more from not working it out?

I don't want them to raise the amount, in fact, I don't even want his
money. I know in the end, he will be on his death bed and have a
lifetime of regrets. I think it has more to do with revenge and hurt
feelings rather than what is important, which is the child.

It is nice that you feel that way. But there are far too many who do not
feel that way at all.

I am so
glad that my mom and dad taught me the value of a days worth of work,
because from what I have been reading, a lot of the NCP are mad
because the CP won't work and do thier share.

I could introduce you to a few--and they are adamant that they should be
supported by the NCP because, after all, they have the arduous task of
raising the child.

I'm not saying that all of the CP are in it for revenge, but I can see
why a lot of these NCP are feeling that they are getting ripped off.
If everyone would put the child above all, where would they all stand?

Those are the cases you do not see in court. It only takes one to create
a
disagreement. And if you will get more for disagreeing, why agree?

I'm not trying to say I'm better than the next person, but a parent
needs to work in order to show thier children how to make a living.
How will my son know how to be a man, and take responsibility if I
don't teach him?

Didn't you say you are married? Isn't his stepfather helping with that
task?

If the CP doesn't work, then child support should not be granted to
them. If the CP does hold down a job, and is paying thier share of the
childs financial responsibility, then the NCP should pay the child
support.

If the CP doesn't work, the child should go to the NCP.

Whether the CP works or not is irrelevant. The child should EQUALLY be with
the CP (code acronym for "mother) and the NCP (code acronym for "father).
But can't have that, because then it would be
.................................. FAIR.

On Oct 8, 1:26 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in glegroups.com...





On Oct 7, 8:05 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"teachrmama" wrote in message

...

"Gini" wrote in message
news:wZdOi.6096$br2.4400@trndny03...

"Bob Whiteside" wrote

"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote
...................

Draft a petition, get at least 1,000 signatures, then send it to
your
state legislator. Those are the people making the laws. Even the
Judicial Fitness Board answers to the states ethics board. That's
who
you need to write to.

Just saying stuff up doesn't make it true. Your first solution got
shot
down, so you came up with a second one. The second one is not
workable
either.
==
What? You mean you didn't know all we need to do is write a few
letters?

That would be nice, wouldn't it? This just one more time underlines
the
fact that most people do not have any idea what the child support
system
in this country is really like. I think she really, genuinely means
what
she says, and feels like she is offering viable solutions.

I liken it sometimes to contract law. The big print gives it to you and
the
small print takes it away.

The big print in family law suggests modifications of CS orders can be
filed
for changes of circumstance like a reduction in income. The small print
in
family law says you can file for a reduction but there is a fat chance
you
are going to get it because we can impute income to you and increase your
CS
if you try to get it reduced.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My ex filed for a modificaion because of all his other kids, and wants
to reduce his monthly obligation. I don't care, it's not like $117.00
a month is going to make me or break me. Are you telling me he is only
screwing himself over with this request? I find it hard to believe
that they would hike it up more when I am not going to oppose his
request.

There are huge legal differences between asking for a reduction of CS
becasue of reduced income and asking for a reduction of CS due to other
children.

I think a lot of NCP's whith all this child support drama could make
thier lives a lot better if they tried to work out some type of
arrangement with the CP. Isn't there any way you all could work out
something before getting the courts involved?

She wanted as much of my assets and income as she could get to hurt me. I
wanted to pay a fair amount and move on. All the men I know who had an
"amicable" divorce gave their exes everything they wanted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some people have a hard time getting over things, and sometimes they
feel the way to make the other person hurt as much as they do is to
get as much from them as possible. Those people don't stop to think
"WWJD", or they fail to remember that life is short and we all get
judged in the end.

On Oct 8, 1:26 pm, "DB" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in

Do you not live in Americia, do you not work? YOU people includes
yourself as well. Don't forget, you are crying while I am trying to
help you out, so when you say "people like you", it applies to you as
well.

You don't need to help me, you're the one that lives here and will have to
pay the price for the hole that your government reprehensive has dug for
you. You better get busy writing a whole bunch of letters!!!!

If you feel I don't have anything worth telling you, please read over
my posts and don't bother to reply. You are ranting about the same
issues as all the other folks on here, so you are also in that same
hole!

On Oct 8, 1:41 pm, "Bob Whiteside" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in glegroups.com...

If both of the parents would communicate with each other BEFORE

getting the courts involved, there would be less need for the CSEA,
and judges to be involved. I notice a lot of bad mouthing on BOTH
sides going on. Wouldn't it be easier for both parties to get together
and work something out?

How about court sanctioned mandatory mediation? The parties sit down and
work everything out. Then the parties go to a hearing to get the agreement
approved by the court. Guess what - If one of the parties (read the mom)
changes her mind about one of the issues the entire agreement becomes null
and void. IOW - A bilatereral agreement can be derailed by a unilateral
decisions at the last minute.

How will my son know how to be a man, and take responsibility if I
don't teach him?

A mother can never teach her child how to be a man. Mothers do not know how
to teach a male child how to think like a man, act like a man, compete like
a man, take risks like a man, show strength like a man, etc

That's where you are wrong. I am mom and dad, and my son will have all
the life lessons, and advice I can give him. I know there are some
things only a father figure can teach, but my husband does a pretty
good job, but don't down play the mothers roles just because you have
been wrong. Don't ever think that I as a mother can not teach my son
to think, act, compete, take risks, or compete like a GOOD man. That's
just your opinion, not a fact. It take more than testicles to raise a
boy into a man. As far as the other things go, I know about competing
(I played softball and field hockey in high school), and about taking
risks (I am an operations specialist in a mans line of business), and
you can tell me about strength when you are abe to endure the pain of
giving birth. Don't doubt that my son will be a good man when he is on
age.
Sometimes all you need to do to raise a child into a good person is to
set an excellent example. Children follow the example set for them,
and I don't think that that is determined by the gender of the person
setting it. If you have a parent that is up to no good, does drugs,
lazes about, well; the child that sees this is more likely to mimic
that behavior.

On Oct 8, 2:55 pm, "DB" wrote:
"child support owed by deadbeats" wrote in

The law clearly states that if you pay money directly to the CP it is
considered a gift, unless you were married, then the check memo must
state CHILD SUPPORT.

Yes the Law clearly says that, the law also clearly stated at one time that
it was legal to own another human being and pay a fair price to keep those
human beings in a state of slavery.

What are you going to do when they pass a law to introduce a war tax to pay
for this thing in Iraq.
You're bitching about the cost of children's clothing, think how it's going
to be when you are forced to pay 4 times that rate to pay back the trillion
plus dollars to the tax payers. Smile, it's all legal too!!!!!!!!1

We are not talking about how the las WAS written, we are talking about
how the law IS written. When was it ever moraly right to own another
person?