Excuse me????????????

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even
figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from
their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in the
eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current feministic
courts, anything is possible to be used against men but at the same
time
hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"?
I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the father from
the
children.

Since CS is awarded to pay for the children being in the care of the CP
100%
of the time, there is no incentive for the NCP to exercise any contact
with
the children. The NCP's CS obligation does not vary based on whether
they
see their children or not. It is a totally voluntary process for NCP's
to
add to their CS obligation by spending more money on visitation.

CP's rationalize NCP's should exercise visitation based on love alone.
To
carry their logic through, CP's should want to be CP's base on love alone
too, and forgo any money incentives they receive.

This was a complete non-answer to the question above, Bob.

Not to mention your response was riddled with untruths and misinformation.


Which you will gladly point out, no?
Phil #3

"Moon Shyne" wrote in

So far, so good here - they're both honor students, with a good circle of
friends.

I can't ask for a whole lot more than that.


Is that so?

Then why are you still on this NG whining about CS issues, get on with your
life or don't you have one?

At the end of the message by "teachrmama" below, she asks, "Do you
really think that a father supporting his children is charity?"

As far as I am concerned, of course the answer to this question is no.
However, under the current system of "child support" in the U.S., the money
paid by fathers is not a way of supporting their children. It is financial
support for the mothers of their children. There MAY be a trickle down
effect for the children, but this is entirely at the mother's discretion.
This is a crucial point, and one of the two features that generate most of
the dissatisfaction fathers feel about the current system. (The other is
the continuing glass ceiling on paternal custody.)

I know of no jurisdiction that imposes any controls on how "child
support" is spent. And any time this is proposed, there is an immediate
outcry by the women who receive the money. Yet, it would be perfectly
possible to set up a separate bank account into which both the mother and
father would pay, and from which genuine child-related expenses would be
paid -- with BOTH parents drawing on the money as appropriate. Mothers and
the organizations that claim to represent them wouldn't like this, because
it is a control issue for them, and they want to maintain unilateral control
of this money. However, such a change would diminish fathers' resentment of
the present grotesquely biased system.

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%NGhf.9809$dv.1197@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into
the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand
how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family
for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry
any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities
towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice.
And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have
the
right to discontinue such charity?

I'd be glad to join in this experiment with you, Chris. You go ahead and
send me $100 per week for 10 years, and then we will see if I am willing
to let you discontinue your charity. G

Do you really think that a father supporting his children is charity?

"Chris" wrote in message
news:E70if.9912$dv.5256@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%NGhf.9809$dv.1197@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old.
At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife
(who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE
does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE
pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely
and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into
the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite understand
how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his family
for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and dry
any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities
towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the choice.
And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not have
the
right to discontinue such charity?

I'd be glad to join in this experiment with you, Chris. You go ahead and
send me $100 per week for 10 years, and then we will see if I am willing
to
let you discontinue your charity. G

Do you really think that a father supporting his children is charity?

YES.

And how 'bout my $100 per week?......

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:E70if.9912$dv.5256@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:%NGhf.9809$dv.1197@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Chris" wrote in message
news:hGuhf.8733$dv.1404@fed1read02...

"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old.
At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife
(who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE
does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE
pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely
and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang
out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it
is
not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his
constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children
into
the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.

chuckle I knew you would say that, Chris. I don't quite
understand
how
you parlay that into a married man who has been supporting his
family
for
a
decade or more having the right to walk out, leaving them high and
dry
any
time he wants to, though. Doesn't he have *any* responsibilities
towards
his children?

NO, he does not. Responsibility rests with the one who made the
choice.
And
in this case it is the WOMAN who made such choice.
If I hand you a hundred dollars every week for 10 years, do I not
have
the
right to discontinue such charity?

I'd be glad to join in this experiment with you, Chris. You go ahead
and
send me $100 per week for 10 years, and then we will see if I am
willing
to
let you discontinue your charity. G

Do you really think that a father supporting his children is charity?

YES.

And how 'bout my $100 per week?......

We're just gonna have to put that on the back burner for now.

"Kenneth S." wrote in message
...
At the end of the message by "teachrmama" below, she asks, "Do you
really think that a father supporting his children is charity?"

As far as I am concerned, of course the answer to this question is no.
However, under the current system of "child support" in the U.S., the
money
paid by fathers is not a way of supporting their children. It is
financial
support for the mothers of their children. There MAY be a trickle down
effect for the children, but this is entirely at the mother's discretion.
This is a crucial point, and one of the two features that generate most of
the dissatisfaction fathers feel about the current system. (The other is
the continuing glass ceiling on paternal custody.)

While I agree with Kenneth's comments, I believe father dissatisfaction with
the family law system is based on all the "assumptions" within the law, that
may or not fit a particular set of parents. Some examples a

1.) The assumption CS money will be spent appropriately on the children.
2.) The assumption the CP will contribute their fair share as ordered by
the court.
3.) The assumption a CP receiving public assistance cannot pay CS.
4.) The assumption NCP's can find the exact same job with the exact same
compensation package if a job is lost.
5.) The assumption the CS guidelines are correct.
6.) The assumption mothers make better custodial parents.
7.) The assumption mothers are good and fathers are bad in disputes.
8.) The assumption men are harassing women when they raise issues before
the court.
9.) The assumption removing one parent from a household will have no impact
on the children.
10.) The assumption a mother who remarries and doesn't work can only make
the minimum wage.
11.) The assumption the husband is the father of a child born during
marriage.
12.) The assumption continuing the CP's lifestyle will have no impact on the
NCP.
13.) The assumption NCP's will not have any parenting costs.
14.) The assumption the only way to get fathers to pay CS is for the state
to collect it.
15.) The assumption CP's will voluntarily comply with visitation orders.
16) The assumption domestic relations incidences are the man's fault.
17.) The assumption women never lie to obtain TRO's.
18.) The assumption women never abuse drugs or alcohol around children.
19.) The assumption mothers are always make wise and appropriate decisions.
20.) The assumption giving money to women will make them better mothers.
21.) The assumption signing a paternity declaration overrides DNA tests
after an arbitrary period.

Another way of looking at that list is to see it as an inventory of special
rights given to mothers that ensure favorable outcomes to women in family
law cases. If, as some claim, there are equal rights for men and women in
the family law system none of those items would be an issue.

"Phil #3" wrote in message
k.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years - hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't
even
figure into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children
from
their father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm
in
the eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current
feministic courts, anything is possible to be used against men but at
the
same time hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"? I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the
father
from the children.

Phil #3

I did but I forgot you can't understand English.
I suppose you think the children only suffer if the father absents
himself,
not when the mother forbids his interaction with them?

Of course, because that's "different".

That would be about
right for your brand of sexism.
Phil #3

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005 22:30:20 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"Beverly" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 18:19:19 -0800, "Chris" wrote:


"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"JayR" wrote in message
...
teachrmama wrote:

OK, Chris, just for the fun of it: Man and woman marry, have
children,
andaer gloriously happy until thier youngest is 10 years old. At
that
point he gets the hots for his secretary. HE leaves his wife (who
has
been a SAHM for 15 years) to run off with Holly Hoohoos. HE does
not
want custody because Holly does not want children. Should HE pay
child
support?


By "does not want custody," do you mean that he has completely and
permanently severed his contact with the child so he can hang out
with
Holly?

Absolutely. That's exactly what I meant. And I'm aware that it is not
the
norm. I was just curious to see how far Chris would go in his constant
claim that *only* women are responsible for bringing children into the
world--even if a married couple both decide that they want kids.

I will go to the end. Married or not, STILL it is her choice.



If so, then this is the extremely rare "deadbeat dad" scenario
that the present child support system and it's supporters assume is
epidemic and representative of 99% of cases. In this case, I do
believe
that forced financial support -- at a rate linked to 50% of the
expenses
necessary for raising a child and with full accountability for those
expenses -- is justified. Forced payment of financial child support
should be reserved for only the most aggregious abandoners.

I absolutely agree with you. And I also feel that a woman who keeps
the
birth of a child secret from the father should NEVER get a penny of
support
for that child, and should certainly never get to be the "victim"
deserving
of arrearages.

What bearing does secrecy have on her SOLE choice?

I believe that there are states that will not allow a married woman to
abort without her spouse's agreement in writing.

I could be wrong, but isn't that a violation of the Roe v. Wade decision?

Roe Vs. Wade decriminalizes abortion, but I don't believe there is any
language which gives a woman an absolute right to abort at any time.
In fact, I believe there is language which limits a woman's right
(such as where she is in the term of her pregnancy). The tenth
amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the
states respectively, or to the people"; hence, the states can choose
to be more restrictive absent illegalizing it.

Happens all the time. For instance, Federal minimum wage is $5.15,
but there is nothing restricting the states from "upping the ante" so
to speak and having a different mininum wage... so long as it does not
go below $5.15.

As far as I understand it, a state can require spousal involvement in
the decision to abort so long as they don't criminalize it. Hence, if
a woman aborts without her spouse's approval, it would be a civil
matter, not criminal.



The form my ex and I
filled out when I had my tubal had language in it concerning abortion
(we didn't need to sign that part).




Howver, this is not the reality in most cases. Most fathers, even if
they
ran off with Holly Bigboobs, still want to DIRECTLY support their
kids
and
would do so if the present system didn't make it nearly impossible in
the
presence of an uncooperative/greedy/vindictive CP mother.

Jay R.

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them
in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their father
has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even
figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from
their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in
the
eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current
feministic
courts, anything is possible to be used against men but at the same
time
hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"?
I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the father from
the
children.

Since CS is awarded to pay for the children being in the care of the CP
100%
of the time, there is no incentive for the NCP to exercise any contact
with
the children. The NCP's CS obligation does not vary based on whether
they
see their children or not. It is a totally voluntary process for NCP's
to
add to their CS obligation by spending more money on visitation.

CP's rationalize NCP's should exercise visitation based on love alone.
To
carry their logic through, CP's should want to be CP's base on love
alone
too, and forgo any money incentives they receive.

This was a complete non-answer to the question above, Bob.

Here's how I understand your question - Why would an NCP father not see his
children when not seeing his children is the father's personal decision?

My answer - Because visitation is a voluntary process that adds to the
father's CS obligation since the cost of visitations is not considered. And
the assumption fathers should visit their children based on love alone is
not good logic since mothers don't parent based on love alone.


Not to mention your response was riddled with untruths and misinformation.

So here is a free shot for you. Where is the NCP father's cost of
visitation considered in setting CS awards in your state? Would you parent
your children without any CS money?

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

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

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

"Phil #3" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Moon Shyne" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
The same way damages are proven when company A breaches contract
with
company B. I know, I know, you wish to defend the currect
arbitrary
percent of income systems...

You know no such thing.

For example - my ex hasn't called my 2 kids in nearly 3 years -
hasn't
had an overnight with them in nearly 4 years, and hasn't seen them
in
person, it'll be 3 years next month.

How does one calculate the damages to my children, that their
father
has
ignored them for all this time?


From the way the courts act when a father is notified that he has a
nearly
grown child for which he owes back child support: it doesn't even
figure
into the problem. It appears that purposely keeping children from
their
father causes no punishable harm, ergo, it could not cause harm in
the
eyes of the courts. Of course, when speaking of the current
feministic
courts, anything is possible to be used against men but at the same
time
hold women harmless.

Who said anything about "purposely keeping the children from their
father"?
I was asking about when the father is the one keeping the father from
the
children.

Since CS is awarded to pay for the children being in the care of the CP
100%
of the time, there is no incentive for the NCP to exercise any contact
with
the children. The NCP's CS obligation does not vary based on whether
they
see their children or not. It is a totally voluntary process for NCP's
to
add to their CS obligation by spending more money on visitation.

CP's rationalize NCP's should exercise visitation based on love alone.
To
carry their logic through, CP's should want to be CP's base on love
alone
too, and forgo any money incentives they receive.

This was a complete non-answer to the question above, Bob.

Here's how I understand your question - Why would an NCP father not see
his
children when not seeing his children is the father's personal decision?

Actually, my question pertained to a statement made by JAnderson about
damages.

Phil thehn chose to interject about the mother purposefully keeping the
children from the father, which wasn't the topic and wasn't the question,
and you chose to add fuel to the off-topic fire by making various statements
which are patently untrue - such as CS is awarded to pay for the children
being in the care of the CP 100% of the time (which is actually 2 untruths)



My answer

To questions that weren't asked...

- Because visitation is a voluntary process that adds to the
father's CS obligation since the cost of visitations is not considered.
And
the assumption fathers should visit their children based on love alone is
not good logic since mothers don't parent based on love alone.


Not to mention your response was riddled with untruths and
misinformation.

So here is a free shot for you. Where is the NCP father's cost of
visitation considered in setting CS awards in your state?

Here
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/issue6-00.htm

Would you parent
your children without any CS money?

I've done so any number of times when CS wasn't being paid.