The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America [Archive]

kahless

01-07-2010, 10:46 PM

Some people think it is "for the children" when really it is for the greed of states and local governments that profit from the federal incentives. The federal incentives drive the system through federal payments to states. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

I stumbled upon this article below which is a good primer for those that are typically in disbelief at the complete loss of personal liberties for one parent after a divorce.

The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07/the-loss-of-the-right-to-a-trial-by-jury-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

the issue of harm or an innocent person’s rights is not allowed under statist divorce. Instead one parent, overwhelmingly male, is judged to be lacking in parenting skill – in relation to the other parent, overwhelmingly female – resulting in:

1.Punishment without wrongdoing (Eighth Amendment),
2.Loss of parental rights (First Amendment),
3.Loss of the right to a trial by jury.
4.Arbitrary restrictions on personal liberties,
5.Negatively impacting the pursuit of Happiness,
6.Made to pay child support without the right to question that the money is going for necessities (Due Process – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment), and
7.Made to work to their full potential so as to maximize the child support paid (Thirteenth Amendment),

With federal incentives based on child support collections, the state looks for every way to destroy families to generate revenue. Individual rights usurped, state imposed peonage/slavery, and families destroyed to feed the state’s need for money. As a result, fit parents are reduced to involuntary servitude, stripped of their wealth, and deprived of their children so that the state and the artificial class of custodial parents can financially benefit

jkr

01-07-2010, 11:08 PM

I cannot breed until I can raise my children

MsDoodahs

01-07-2010, 11:10 PM

thanks for posting this.

lynnf

01-08-2010, 03:44 AM

as a victim of this system, I thank you for the post. I can attest to much of the content.

and I only got a light case of the abuse, many others get the full force of it.

unfortunately, the seeds of some of this come from the divorce cases in the 30s and 40s in California, where a wife wanted out of a marriage but the only way to get out would be proof of adultery. so while the husband was on a business trip, they would pay a girl in sexy lingerie to get into the husband's room while he was preparing for bed and have a photographer pop in to get pictures of the two in their undies. pictures don't lie, do they?

voila - grist for the divorce mill.

I always wonder about the others out there that are suffering from this situation, but almost no one sees it. kind of like in space, no one can hear you scream.

Alec Baldwin even wrote a book about some of this, I think.

----------------------------------------------

lynn

moostraks

01-08-2010, 09:07 AM

Some people think it is "for the children" when really it is for the greed of states and local governments that profit from the federal incentives. The federal incentives drive the system through federal payments to states. The more divorces, and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy collects from the feds.

I stumbled upon this article below which is a good primer for those that are typically in disbelief at the complete loss of personal liberties for one parent after a divorce.

The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/07/the-loss-of-the-right-to-a-trial-by-jury-child-support-and-divorce-cases-in-america/

Good grief I can't even get through the first introductory paragraph without vomiting.
"Child support is a Common Law punishment which now imposes slavery and punishment without wrongdoing upon one divorcing parent and lack any of the Common Law protections which provided Due Process to the accused; although, the accused these days is deemed guilty by the state of lacking some parenting ability, not abuse or abandonment per the Common Law requirements"

Sounds like another article to be spewed by abusive spouses so they can claim victimization. Want to try slavery? For the priviledge of the other spouse being completely responsible for all the physical and emotional welfare of the minor children brought into this world by 2 parents the supposedly enslaved spouse pays approximately 15-35% of income depending on the number of children usually calculated on net not gross income and giving special circumstances for lower wages.

Then the supposedly enslaved person can play whatever shenanigans they like to subvert this ruling by hiding income or refusing to pay leaving the custodial parent to hire an attorney to enforce the ruling. The entire time never denying the non-custodial parent rights to visitation despite their lack of dedication to provide the meager amount required by law. Custodial parents are always providing more than non-custodial parents by the sheer fact that they are responsible for shelter and daily upkeep never relevant to a percentage of their wages earned.

Don't want to get screwed on child support then find a state with the most conducive environment to keeping the spoils of your work and acknowledge your selfishness outright by telling those you have sex with you will do whatever it takes to avoid having to provide for your progeny. Or don't have sex until you find someone you can trust even if you can no longer remain in a committed relationship with them.(ie only have sex with someone who you could count on to help bury a body ya know??)

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 09:40 AM

It's not "for the children," no. A lot of moms get custody that really shouldn't. A lot of guys get saddled with a ridiculous amount of child support they're forced to pay out, even though they made no conscious choice to have children. The mom, on the other hand, chose to keep the baby. There are long waiting lists of potential parents who'd love to adopt, but she kept the child. There is now a financial incentive to keep an unwanted pregnancy, and there is generally very little oversight of that money once the poor custodial parent receives it.

Divorce is actually far worse, because no such "for the children" heartstrings exist to be tugged. If one spouse was working, then they're supposed to pay out the nose for the other spouse to "maintain that lifestyle" after the divorce. Of course, it doesn't matter that the "lifestyle" must now be maintained on two fronts. Half and half, folks; even if one spouse never lifted a finger to make the money. The assumption is that spouse must have done SOMEthing outstanding to merit half the other spouse's wages. Please.

So many assumptions, so much nosing into our business by the Government. Who can blame them? It's big business, justified by anecdotal sob stories and anachronistic legislation.

sratiug

01-08-2010, 09:41 AM

Good grief I can't even get through the first introductory paragraph without vomiting.
"Child support is a Common Law punishment which now imposes slavery and punishment without wrongdoing upon one divorcing parent and lack any of the Common Law protections which provided Due Process to the accused; although, the accused these days is deemed guilty by the state of lacking some parenting ability, not abuse or abandonment per the Common Law requirements"

Sounds like another article to be spewed by abusive spouses so they can claim victimization. Want to try slavery? For the priviledge of the other spouse being completely responsible for all the physical and emotional welfare of the minor children brought into this world by 2 parents the supposedly enslaved spouse pays approximately 15-35% of income depending on the number of children usually calculated on net not gross income and giving special circumstances for lower wages.

Then the supposedly enslaved person can play whatever shenanigans they like to subvert this ruling by hiding income or refusing to pay leaving the custodial parent to hire an attorney to enforce the ruling. The entire time never denying the non-custodial parent rights to visitation despite their lack of dedication to provide the meager amount required by law. Custodial parents are always providing more than non-custodial parents by the sheer fact that they are responsible for shelter and daily upkeep never relevant to a percentage of their wages earned.

Don't want to get screwed on child support then find a state with the most conducive environment to keeping the spoils of your work and acknowledge your selfishness outright by telling those you have sex with you will do whatever it takes to avoid having to provide for your progeny. Or don't have sex until you find someone you can trust even if you can no longer remain in a committed relationship with them.(ie only have sex with someone who you could count on to help bury a body ya know??)

No one should have to pay to have idiots raise their children and teach them stupidity. My cousin's child was taken from his mother when she was pulled over on crack at 3 in the morning. He was forced to take drug tests and could only see his son on very occasional supervised visits for months. Now they gave the kid back to his crack head mother so he has to kiss her ass again.

The state must be completely removed from marriage.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 09:53 AM

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 09:57 AM

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

Yeah... the article itself is nutty and a bit insulting.

Force is force, and there's a lot wrong with the system, but saying that collecting child support from a parent, and forcing them to work a job at full potential (so they can't shirk child support by just working at McDonalds or something)... equating that with slavery and saying it violates the Amendment barring such... that's :rolleyes:

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 10:00 AM

moostraks

01-08-2010, 10:31 AM

well, the only valid argument would be that it is creating a debtors prison of sorts.
one party owes the other party for taking care of their mutual child. that is a matter of debt.
to arrest someone for debt is wrong. and would fall under wrongful imprisonment and thus slavery.

Failure to provide for ones children is the crime not the debt. Same as leaving a child unattended before they can be self-responsible. The reason most folks view it as a debt is because one party, the custodial parent, has seen fit to provide the care so they don't lose the child to social services.

The person who abandons financial support of the child is no different than one who provides no physical or emotional care. They are a stranger with no vested interest and should be punished for abandonment the same as deserting a child to fend for themselves.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 10:35 AM

No one should have to pay to have idiots raise their children and teach them stupidity. My cousin's child was taken from his mother when she was pulled over on crack at 3 in the morning. He was forced to take drug tests and could only see his son on very occasional supervised visits for months. Now they gave the kid back to his crack head mother so he has to kiss her ass again.

The state must be completely removed from marriage.

I agree with you re:state out of marriage. That said, abandoning a child should be a punishable crime with harsh consequences.

Your cousin should have chosen a better person to have sex with, as everyone suffers the consequences of their choices. Don't want to pay? Then don't play...

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 10:39 AM

Failure to provide for ones children is the crime not the debt. Same as leaving a child unattended before they can be self-responsible. The reason most folks view it as a debt is because one party, the custodial parent, has seen fit to provide the care so they don't lose the child to social services.

The person who abandons financial support of the child is no different than one who provides no physical or emotional care. They are a stranger with no vested interest and should be punished for abandonment the same as deserting a child to fend for themselves.

I see things from a sociological perspective, so your post has a lot of meat to it through my lenses.
Why is it a crime to leave a child?
Does that infer that the child is the property of the parent?
Does this not conflict with natural law?
Funny that the charges aren't "child endangerment", but the crime is "failure to pay child support". and- it seems that even though it is immoral to abandon resposibilities- in every case i've seen- a dead beat mom or dad does not equal a dead child. it equals a poor child. so it is a matter of not paying a debt. not a criminal case at all.

So another question under natural law(the law of self-ownership and private property rights)- Does a child have a RIGHT to your body? Does it have a RIGHT to your labor?

kahless

01-08-2010, 10:49 AM

Yeah... the article itself is nutty and a bit insulting.

Force is force, and there's a lot wrong with the system, but saying that collecting child support from a parent, and forcing them to work a job at full potential (so they can't shirk child support by just working at McDonalds or something)... equating that with slavery and saying it violates the Amendment barring such... that's :rolleyes:

I am amazed to see this kind of comment in a forum that promotes liberty. How is what I described not slavery or indentured servitude. The government forcing you to maintain a specific line of work to line someone elses pocket is slavery. The government should be completely out of marriage and the personal lives of its citizens period.

Parents are naturally equal parents to their children therefore automatic 50/50 joint custody should be the norm. Since both parents are maintaining a household no money should change hands. The system we have now clearly creates single parent households due to the incentive of one parent to receive child support well into adult hood.

Since one parent no longer has equal rights the other has the power of an authoritarian government behind them (slave master) to threaten use of force to obtain funds. The government does not care about the non-custodial parents ability to pay but rather they meet guideliness for life style support that has no basis in reality. If they fall behind through no fault of thier own the government punishes them with imprisonment and loss of professional licenses. This puts them even further behind, creates jobloss situations and possible physical harm to the non-custodial parent (including that of death and permant physical impairment at the hands of police or other prisoners). Again, placed in this situation through no fault of their own.

These circumstances the government created that deny the non-custodial parent liberty, as well as creating single parent households and further create a situation of where one parent is unable to support a child.

Statistics have proven the majority of divorced parents support their children and make every effort to stay in their lives. Of course there always some dead beats but that is no reason for millions of honest hard working non-custodial parents to have to live in fear of government if a job loss occurs or are unable to maintain an "expected" income (especially in this economy).

Dead beats are not the norm. It is honest people being threatened and victimized by a fascist government through no fault of thier own is the norm in this country.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 11:09 AM

I see things from a sociological perspective, so your post has a lot of meat to it through my lenses.
Why is it a crime to leave a child?
Does that infer that the child is the property of the parent?
Does this not conflict with natural law?
Funny that the charges aren't "child endangerment", but the crime is "failure to pay child support". and- it seems that even though it is immoral to abandon resposibilities- in every case i've seen- a dead beat mom or dad does not equal a dead child. it equals a poor child. so it is a matter of not paying a debt. not a criminal case at all.

So another question under natural law(the law of self-ownership and private property rights)- Does a child have a RIGHT to your body? Does it have a RIGHT to your labor?

I think the charge depends on the prosecutor and I know you can get them for abandonment for not showing for visitation if they want to go after the dead beat person. (little fyi for anyone involved with a loser...)

Considering abortion, isn't the child parental property from that aspect?( Not advocating for/against merely stating current mindset of society)

Just because one parent provides the support does not negate the deadbeats failure to provide as being an endangering scenario. They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

If a child is left behind in a grocery store, then the state takes over care, therefore the child would not be dead but a crime of abandonment occurred and there would be numerous consequences. Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children) If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt. Who would let a child go off with the parent who left them alone in a grocery store????

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

Regarding natural law you would have to have a society with a completely different ethical perspective than the current one we reside in. Natural law is based upon a certain amount of respect for others and self-respect/responsibility. This is where knowing whom you have sex with and trusting them alleviates the mess many find themselves in with deadbeats. (can you tell I speak from experience???lol!!!)

As for a child's right to the parents body- my perspective is yes to a certain extent. I made a choice as an adult to have sex and as such am accountable to the results of my actions. I breastfed- all of my children- and as such until they were no longer nursing they had a right to my breasts when hungry or I had to make suitable arrangements to provide otherwise. One child would not take a bottle-ever, and so I was limited until she weaned as she was too immature to reason with regarding this issue. Again, I made the choice to breastfeed and so was accountable for having established her feeding needs.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age they are not able to be self-supporting. So as such they are entitled to a parent's labor (financially and emotionally) in a manner according to the age of the child. Once again, the intial action of sex results in the consequence of children.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 11:12 AM

I think the charge depends on the prosecutor and I know you can get them for abandonment for not showing for visitation if they want to go after the dead beat person. (little fyi for anyone involved with a loser...)

Considering abortion, isn't the child parental property from that aspect?( Not advocating for/against merely stating current mindset of society)

Just because one parent provides the support does not negate the deadbeats failure to provide as being an endangering scenario. They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

If a child is left behind in a grocery store, then the state takes over care, therefore the child would not be dead but a crime of abandonment occurred and there would be numerous consequences. Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children) If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt. Who would let a child go off with the parent who left them alone in a grocery store????

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

Regarding natural law you would have to have a society with a completely different ethical perspective than the current one we reside in. Natural law is based upon a certain amount of respect for others and self-respect/responsibility. This is where knowing whom you have sex with and trusting them alleviates the mess many find themselves in with deadbeats. (can you tell I speak from experience???lol!!!)

As for a child's right to the parents body- my perspective is yes to a certain extent. I made a choice as an adult to have sex and as such am accountable to the results of my actions. I breastfed- all of my children- and as such until they were no longer nursing they had a right to my breasts when hungry or I had to make suitable arrangements to provide otherwise. One child would not take a bottle-ever, and so I was limited until she weaned as she was too immature to reason with regarding this issue. Again, I made the choice to breastfeed and so was accountable for having established her feeding needs.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age they are not able to be self-supporting. So as such they are entitled to a parent's labor (financially and emotionally) in a manner according to the age of the child. Once again, the intial action of sex results in the consequence of children.

and at what age does the child not have a right to his parent's body and labor?

moostraks

01-08-2010, 11:22 AM

I am amazed to see this kind of comment in a forum that promotes liberty. How is what I described not slavery or indentured servitude. The government forcing you to maintain a specific line of work to line someone elses pocket is slavery. The government should be completely out of marriage and the personal lives of its citizens period.

Parents are naturally equal parents to their children therefore automatic 50/50 joint custody should be the norm. Since both parents are maintaining a household no money should change hands. The system we have now clearly creates single parent households due to the incentive of one parent to receive child support well into adult hood.

Since one parent no longer has equal rights the other has the power of an authoritarian government behind them (slave master) to threaten use of force to obtain funds. The government does not care about the non-custodial parents ability to pay but rather they meet guideliness for life style support that has no basis in reality. If they fall behind through no fault of thier own the government punishes them with imprisonment and loss of professional licenses. This puts them even further behind, creates jobloss situations and possible physical harm to the non-custodial parent (including that of death and permant physical impairment at the hands of police or other prisoners). Again, placed in this situation through no fault of their own.

These circumstances the government created that deny the non-custodial parent liberty, as well as creating single parent households and further create a situation of where one parent is unable to support a child.

Statistics have proven the majority of divorced parents support their children and make every effort to stay in their lives. Of course there always some dead beats but that is no reason for millions of honest hard working non-custodial parents to have to live in fear of government if a job loss occurs or are unable to maintain an "expected" income (especially in this economy).

Dead beats are not the norm. It is honest people being threatened and victimized by a fascist government through no fault of thier own is the norm in this country.

Your statistics do not match those I have been exposed to and a funny thing about statistics is they must be viewed through the lense of the individual polling (see f-u-frank threads).

50/50 custodial split would be great if there wasn't a person with needs involved. How would you like to spend your life trying to remember what home you were to return to according to the day of the week? How about which school you would attend? It is incredibly immature to view life through what the adult is entitled to regarding visitation, but rather what is in the best interest of the child who has not asked for the seperation to occur.

Again, someone who is incapable of having an amicable seperation is merely suffering from their consequences of choosing an improper person to be involved with in the first place. Own it and move on or wallow in self-pity but don't punish those who had no part of the adult choices with a life of misery. Someone has to be the grown up and do what is in the best interest of the children. Placing the blame on the government for making someone do what should come naturally is ridiculous.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 11:26 AM

and at what age does the child not have a right to his parent's body and labor?

Depends on the age...

If you are attached by an umbilical cord then you get housing internally. If you have teeth you can be weaned. Children under 18 aren't allowed to work a 40 hour work week so they cannot be self-sustaining financially. So the parent is responsible for all primary needs until the age of majority...

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 11:32 AM

Depends on the age...

If you are attached by an umbilical cord then you get housing internally. If you have teeth you can be weaned. Children under 18 aren't allowed to work a 40 hour work week so they cannot be self-sustaining financially. So the parent is responsible for all primary needs until the age of majority...

what is the age of majority?

kahless

01-08-2010, 11:37 AM

They have made a choice to abandon care and as such should be held accountable. (numerous possibilities imo of how to accomplish this namely begin by loss of visitation and parental rights)

In reality 99% of cases non-custodial parents that do not meet child support requirement did not make a choice to abandon care. The government sets a life style guideline and if the non-custodial parent is even one dollar short they are considered in contempt. This even if it is of no fault of their own such as job loss, pay cuts, illness, etc. Does not matter if the non-custodial parent is providing shelter, clothing and food. If they are a dollar short they are in contempt for that money going to the custodial parent that requires no accountability.

Generally non-paying parents continue to enjoy priviledges until the custodial parent can afford to get a good attorney to bring charges up.(not easy when you are providing sole support of the minor children)

This is outright false information. All the custodial parent has to do is fill out a piece of paper. The federal and state government have all kinds of programs so the custodial does not have to spend a dime to collect support. The non-custodial parent typically has to pay for the lawyer and court fees while the custodial gets a free ride on the taxpayers dime.

If the custodial parent does not abide by visitation orders they are held in contempt.

This is one of the biggest grievances of the non-custodial parent movement since it mostly never happens.

IMO the charges are not steep enough for child support issues currently.

You lose your job, you get sick or get a pay cut you fear for your life because the government is threatening you with prison. What a great way to live and have to go to sleep with thinking about every night. You think that is not enough. :rolleyes:

There are many documented cases where people are dieing in the hospital ended up with warrants for arrest over this since they were unable to pay. This is happening all over America as we speak but never reported by the media. The only time I remember the media covering it is when we had an American soldier in Gulf War I captured and held by Saddam Hussien. After he was released and returned to the states he was arrested for not sending that child support check while being held by Saddam Hussien.

An adult child is not entitled to their parents fruit of their labor, but until a minor is of age .

In some states this goes well into the childs 20s.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 11:43 AM

what is the age of majority?

http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm

Varies by state...

Not to get in a contest regarding anarchist views with anyone who feels the need to contest the state's right to assign age of adulthood. Currently this is what each state has decided and until a change in state laws a child is unable to be self sustaining and an adult is not legally allowed to emancipate them excepting certain conditions provided for within state laws.

We currently have a 17 year old we would have gladly emancipated and she would have willingly agreed, but we could not legally do so here until 18. So the clock ticks, and she suddenly wants to recant years of persecuting her family and is trying to ingratiate herself. Double edge sword cuts both ways...:)

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 11:47 AM

moostraks

01-08-2010, 12:28 PM

In reality 99% of cases non-custodial parents that do not meet child support requirement did not make a choice to abandon care. The government sets a life style guideline and if the non-custodial parent is even one dollar short they are considered in contempt. This even if it is of no fault of their own such as job loss, pay cuts, illness, etc. Does not matter if the non-custodial parent is providing shelter, clothing and food. If they are a dollar short they are in contempt for that money going to the custodial parent that requires no accountability.

Bull chips. Lifestyle guideline my keister. They go by percentage of income according to the number of children. That is how one who is making a large sum pays more but it is still a percentage of income. It varies by state but is significantly less than the 100% factor one would contribute if they are living together so the non-custodial parent pays a percentage and can make independant lifestyle decisions while the custodial parent is accountable according to the needs of the child. Custodial parents are responsible for the slack at all points in time.

This is outright false information. All the custodial parent has to do is fill out a piece of paper. The federal and state government have all kinds of programs so the custodial does not have to spend a dime to collect support. The non-custodial parent typically has to pay for the lawyer and court fees while the custodial gets a free ride on the taxpayers dime.

This is relevant to what you seek to accomplish and how soon you want to have something achieved. There may be programs you can seek to forward to (such as the federal income tax program now but this was not my experience 15+ years ago when this issue for my children first reared its head), but in regards to proving abandonment it needs to go before a judge.

I am not sure of what your experience has been according to the state you reside in but I can attest by my own experiences what occurred in Georgia and I had to have an attorney to draft/file paperwork to claim failure to pay, then he was told to go to the courthouse and pay a percentage towards arrearage, which he also failed to pay along with the weekly support. There was never any punishment involved as I then had to pay an attorney when he failed to pay anything for a certain period of time following this warning and he always stayed right under the bare minimum to avoid prosecution (which was any amount over $0 within a 30 day time frame) until we convinced him to recind his parental rights.

The only way I am aware of getting a free attorney to prosecute is if you qualify for legal aid or receive social services.Again, things might have changed in the last 5+ years but this was Georgia a little over 5 years ago where it was all on the custodial parent to pay their own attorney's fees.

This is one of the biggest grievances of the non-custodial parent movement since it mostly never happens.

Translate mostly never happens? The failure to pay? If the non-custodial parent does not get their appointed visitation they can pay an attorney to file charges on the custodial person for contempt.

You lose your job, you get sick or get a pay cut you fear for your life because the government is threatening you with prison. What a great way to live and have to go to sleep with thinking about every night. You think that is not enough. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Non-custodial parents can petition the court to ammend the amount. The percentage required is significantly less than the amount custodial parents pay. The person with custody has no option to not provide support and care, why should the non-custodial parent get a pass? Do you think custodial parents never lose their jobs or get sick? Again it is the fault of the one who chose a poor mate that amicable arrangements can't be made out of court to deal with special circumstances...

There are many documented cases where people are dieing in the hospital ended up with warrants for arrest over this since they were unable to pay. This is happening all over America as we speak but never reported by the media. The only time I remember the media covering it is when we had an American soldier in Gulf War I captured and held by Saddam Hussien. After he was released and returned to the states he was arrested for not sending that child support check while being held by Saddam Hussien.

Again, life sucks, and everyone suffers from making poor choices. Cry me a river as I can sit here a lament an ocean myself of bad choices. If they would have spent as much time picking someone to have sex with as they do in picking a movie to watch at night then maybe they would have found someone with more compassion. This problem can be solved by choosing a higher moral level of people to associate with in the first place.

In some states this goes well into the childs 20s.
Really? So what you are saying is maybe you should think about the state law if you aren't willing to care for your children past a certain age? Again it is your choice to have sex and you can easily research state laws to seek out one which is more amicable to your need to abandon any children that might result from your actions in the sack....:p

moostraks

01-08-2010, 12:42 PM

Age of majority, means the majority decide when you get the rights of a true human being. You support this? Majority deciding on your rights? should that not be self-evident?

Have you any children? Should they be self-deciding? If so I have a 17 year old you can have to prove your point....:p

Children who are allowed to be self determining in today's society are selfish bastards who will cause society to reap what it sows. One does not grow a healthy garden by throwing seeds to the wind and letting things grow wildly, unless you want to have a huge amount of loss choked out by weeds. A child cannot provide for its needs until it reaches a certain level of maturation. It is adults with no morality that have allowed the majority to define the guidelines. With any luck they will embrace the green movement while moral people "breed" them out.

I already stated I am not arguing an anarchists viewpoint of utopia, but dealing with the reality of the current situation regarding state laws and self-sufficiency.

Again natural law works in a society with some moral fortitude. People would then chose to do right with a mind towards consequences.

Working Poor

01-08-2010, 12:42 PM

My H has been so screwed by this child support system he has been jailed and had his drivers license revoked. It makes it almost impossible for him to get a decent paying job. He used to send his ex money directly to her but she did not report it to the court that he had paid. When he lost his job his ex went to court and said he has not paid her for years so they revoked his license and put him in jail. Any tax return goes directly to her including mine.

The judge seems to only believe the ex. She lives in another state which makes it difficult to build a case. The regulations reach across state lines but the defense of these regulations does not. His children say she does not buy them food or clothes or other things they need with the money but instead get charity to give them clothes and food. My H cannot get a DL unless he pays the whole amount his ex says he owes plus reinstating fees. My H will be 70 years old before he can get his DL back at the rate it is going.

Why they think putting a man in jail and revoking his DL, professional license, and pass port will make him more likely to pay is beyond me. It just makes it much more difficult to work.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 12:46 PM

Have you any children? Should they be self-deciding? If so I have a 17 year old you can have to prove your point....:p

Children who are allowed to be self determining in today's society are selfish bastards who will cause society to reap what it sows. One does not grow a healthy garden by throwing seeds to the wind and letting things grow wildly, unless you want to have a huge amount of loss choked out by weeds. A child cannot provide for its needs until it reaches a certain level of maturation. It is adults with no morality that have allowed the majority to define the guidelines. With any luck they will embrace the green movement while moral people "breed" them out.

I already stated I am not arguing an anarchists viewpoint of utopia, but dealing with the reality of the current situation regarding state laws and self-sufficiency.

Again natural law works in a society with some moral fortitude. People would then chose to do right with a mind towards consequences.

A right is self-evident, it can't be given or taken by majority vote- if it is- then its a privilege that can taken away.
age of majority is an arbitrary number. childhood is a creation of man. these are both sociological truths.
no human, regardless of disability has right over another human being.
now that doesn't even consider morality. but morality is not natural law because morality is also subjective. for instance, the war of drugs is a morality war for most people. drugs are bad, thus it should be illegal. it is immoral to pollute the temple god gave you. doesn't mean you have violated someone else's right.

kahless

01-08-2010, 12:58 PM

Your statistics do not match those I have been exposed to and a funny thing about statistics is they must be viewed through the lense of the individual polling (see f-u-frank threads).

You have probably been exposed to the statistics by the Socialist left which has been widely exposed to be invented. There was a good reference in the history of how invented statistics were used to create the system we have now. I believe it was written by Robert F Gay and when I find it I will post it.

There was another that describes the history of Irwin Girfinkel work in designing the Wisconsin model from Soviet law that was eventually adopted by all the states. Tommy Thompson was praised for it. So this really is not an issue of blaming just the left since both parties are responsible for this mess.

50/50 custodial split would be great if there wasn't a person with needs involved. How would you like to spend your life trying to remember what home you were to return to according to the day of the week? How about which school you would attend? It is incredibly immature to view life through what the adult is entitled to regarding visitation, but rather what is in the best interest of the child who has not asked for the seperation to occur.

My kids are grown and no worse for wear having split that time through the year. If my ex had involved the government the government would have reduced me to a visitor and I probably spent time in jail during lean times and lost everything. Despite during those lean times I provided, food, clothing, shelter, etc for my children.

Contrary to popular believe going to amend a child support order takes months to get to court. So if you temporarily have reduced income you quickly end up in contempt. This whereas a custodial parent just files a piece of paper. The state then contacts the employer for automatic reduction.

Due to the "Welfare Reform Act of 1996" employees are automatically added to the Federal new hires database. Thus there is no issue finding the non-custodial parents place of employment. The state therefore quickly finds the non-custodial parent employer and has them immediately deduct the child support from the employees salary. If they fail to do so the employer will be responsible for the child support.

The non-custodial parent then can request a modification but that may take months for a trial. The modification however would be rejected if it is below the state guidelines.

Most people can identify times in their life when they did not work, were ill or had a drop in salary. The government typically does not recognize this and forces those even in lean times to maintain a imaginary life style that has no basis in reality. It is completely unacceptable for government to force people to live in fear of retribution on them for events out of their control.

Again, someone who is incapable of having an amicable seperation is merely suffering from their consequences of choosing an improper person to be involved with in the first place. Own it and move on or wallow in self-pity but don't punish those who had no part of the adult choices with a life of misery.

Here you have touched on the actual problem where one parent uses the power of government to punish the other with a life of misery. You described the very reason government should never be involved in the private lives of its citizens.

Someone has to be the grown up and do what is in the best interest of the children. Placing the blame on the government for making someone do what should come naturally is ridiculous.

The overwhelming majority of parents do what comes naturally it is government involvement that creates the problem as I described. Actual dead beat dads are a very small percentage.

It is unfortunate that you may have met someone that did not make it easy for you. However you should not support punishment of hard working honest folks for your poor choice of a mate. Your support of this evil not only hurts non-custodial parents which you seem to not care about in a rather vicious way but also hurts the children.

I have seen both sides of it with friends so I have sympathy for your situation as a single mom but you need to wake up and realize we are not all that way and government is never the answer.

kahless

01-08-2010, 01:25 PM

http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/a/agemajoristate.htm

Varies by state...

Not to get in a contest regarding anarchist views with anyone who feels the need to contest the state's right to assign age of adulthood. Currently this is what each state has decided and until a change in state laws a child is unable to be self sustaining and an adult is not legally allowed to emancipate them excepting certain conditions provided for within state laws.

We currently have a 17 year old we would have gladly emancipated and she would have willingly agreed, but we could not legally do so here until 18. So the clock ticks, and she suddenly wants to recant years of persecuting her family and is trying to ingratiate herself. Double edge sword cuts both ways...:)

Child support falls outside of this in some states. I remember years back in NY
politicians tried to make a big deal of a dead beat dad crack down. The non-custodial parent saw his name in the paper and called the police department to explain that it must be a mistake. They came took his house with the media, took him out in cuffs and hauled him off to jail.

The papers however exposed some simple facts that the "child" was 24 years old, the father just brought the kid a car for college and was providing money directly to child who had an apartment outside of the college. He ended up in jail for not giving the money directly to the custodial parent even though the "child" was 24 years of age and the car was considered a gift thus not deducted from his support.

Alawn

01-08-2010, 01:25 PM

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

or any civil case for more than $20

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 01:27 PM

Strangely, the argument being presented is "if you can't pay for your children, then keep it in your pants." Well, why is it not also "if you can't pay for your children, keep your pants on"? The custodial parents do have a very real choice to not be custodial parents. They can shove the child off onto the other parent or, barring that, give them up for adoption. Communities used to be willing to help someone who was in a bad relationship, especially if there were children involved. Money money money. Cry me a river. Oh yes, there's only a percentage of the person's income being confiscated to pay for a child they either did not want, or want but are not allowed full custody of. The rest of that income they are graciously allowed to keep in order to pay for daily living expenses and the commute to go see their children?

The laws are painted in the gaudy colors of "one size fits all," and in this case, they do not fit a lot of cases. There's a suspicious gender bias in divorce/custody cases.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 01:42 PM

A right is self-evident, it can't be given or taken by majority vote- if it is- then its a privilege that can taken away.
age of majority is an arbitrary number. childhood is a creation of man. these are both sociological truths.
no human, regardless of disability has right over another human being.
now that doesn't even consider morality. but morality is not natural law because morality is also subjective. for instance, the war of drugs is a morality war for most people. drugs are bad, thus it should be illegal. it is immoral to pollute the temple god gave you. doesn't mean you have violated someone else's right.

lol...you obviously have no significant experience with children. Children are not miniature adults. Childhood is a reality and the training ground upon which you get self-sufficient adults according to the experiences guided by a caring, responsible individuals they are exposed to or likewise arrogant, selfish individuals with a herd mentality from peer pressure .

As for morality, guess you could argue it is completely subjective but unless one is to live on a deserted island some framework is established by living within the community. A theory has to be rationalized within the context of reality not ideals unless we are just blowhards wanting to pontificate useless theories....

Children aren't disabled, they are immature. Disabled people are given tools to achieve the utmost independance, children need to be taught how to be independant.

War on drugs as rationalization for failure to provide support for ones children? A stretch don't 'cha think? Children have the right to life (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thingie...) and adults have the right not to have sex or accept consequences of raising children until they can be self sufficient which is currently seen as the age of majority.

The idea behind freedom is self RESPONSIBILTY. One has to accept responsibilty for their choices. Child support is the consequence for ones choices in many cases. One can choose to not have sex or know your partner. How about that instead of bizarre ideas of children raised by themselves like animals???

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 01:45 PM

lol...you obviously have no significant experience with children. Children are not miniature adults. Childhood is a reality and the training ground upon which you get self-sufficient adults according to the experiences guided by a caring, responsible individuals they are exposed to or likewise arrogant, selfish individuals with a herd mentality from peer pressure .

As for morality, guess you could argue it is completely subjective but unless one is to live on a deserted island some framework is established by living within the community. A theory has to be rationalized within the context of reality not ideals unless we are just blowhards wanting to pontificate useless theories....

Children aren't disabled, they are immature. Disabled people are given tools to achieve the utmost independance, children need to be taught how to be independant.

War on drugs as rationalization for failure to provide support for ones children? A stretch don't 'cha think? Children have the right to life (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness thingie...) and adults have the right not to have sex or accept consequences of raising children until they can be self sufficient which is currently seen as the age of majority.

The idea behind freedom is self RESPONSIBILTY. One has to accept responsibilty for their choices. Child support is the consequence for ones choices in many cases. One can choose to not have sex or know your partner. How about that instead of bizarre ideas of children raised by themselves like animals???

at what age does a "child" "become" an adult?
do they shed a coocon?
I was driving trucks and tractors at the age of 10. I carried firearms, cut wood. I was an adult at 10.
I could grow my own food, i had the skills to survive. Of course, I wasn't treated like a child, so i wasn't a child. Childhood is man-made idea. The process of socialization is real, but a lot of our problem with older teens stems from treating them like children. it is arbitrary.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins

01-08-2010, 01:51 PM

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

A law is only as great as the policy used to enforce it, and the interpretation used when judging it. When government itself has so neglected this nations posteriety on the Federal level, it is amazing when it condemns single parents for neglect on the local level.

RM918

01-08-2010, 01:51 PM

The idea behind freedom is self RESPONSIBILTY. One has to accept responsibilty for their choices. Child support is the consequence for ones choices in many cases. One can choose to not have sex or know your partner. How about that instead of bizarre ideas of children raised by themselves like animals???

To think that the current spirit of the law is stalwart self-reliance is fooling oneself, as it is the government here we're talking about.

For one, accepting responsibility for one's choices rarely applies to the female side of the aisle, and to imply that it should is usually met with gasps of horror. I'm not going to get into the abortion side of things because that would just completely derail the thread, but Safe Haven laws allow a mother to simply leave a newborn in front of a hospital, firehouse or other places and completely emancipate oneself for responsibility for that child. The father never needs to be informed, no-one in fact needs to be informed, and that is that. Imagine if a father had the right, at any point in the process, to completely detach himself of any parental responsibility? Blood would run through the streets.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins

01-08-2010, 01:58 PM

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 02:03 PM

But that means we should disregard the legal precedence of tyranny in regards to when a child is old enough to move out on their own. We have so screwed up this nation that future generations will need lots of people willing to work and sacrifice for them to live a happy American lives.
Are you ready to give up your social security? Are you willing to forfeit your pension unjustly guaranteed to you by the American aristocracy?

I am. Never planned on getting anything anyway.
I'm lucky, I have a place I can go that is self-sufficient. Surrounded by other family farms that have been around for a long time. A good community of independent people.

I remember tying my own hooks when I was 5. I was told that I couldn't fish until I could tie my bait.
Same went for everything else, the quicker I learned skills of survival, the quicker i proved my worth as an equal in our tribe. that would be a standard, held within a family, that provides for adulthood.
no government law required.

driving age? are you physically big enough to drive, and can you pass the driving test. age matters not.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 02:28 PM

You have probably been exposed to the statistics by the Socialist left which has been widely exposed to be invented. There was a good reference in the history of how invented statistics were used to create the system we have now. I believe it was written by Robert F Gay and when I find it I will post it.

Rude little dismissive dig with the socialist thing. No I am speaking from all the divorcees I know with custody or been exposed to in my life. Not an insignificant number, mind you...

My kids are grown and no worse for wear having split that time through the year. If my ex had involved the government the government would have reduced me to a visitor and I probably spent time in jail during lean times and lost everything. Despite during those lean times I provided, food, clothing, shelter, etc for my children.

Then upon what personnal experience do you base you ideas as mine comes straight from real life exposure....

Contrary to popular believe going to amend a child support order takes months to get to court. So if you temporarily have reduced income you quickly end up in contempt. This whereas a custodial parent just files a piece of paper. The state then contacts the employer for automatic reduction.

Says who and where regarding just file a slip of paper? I know I have never had the benefit of this ease and we went without many times due to lack of income. All custody orders are not direct withdrawal nor are they subject to immediate state seizure. Again I speak from experience and you?

Due to the "Welfare Reform Act of 1996" employees are automatically added to the Federal new hires database. Thus there is no issue finding the non-custodial parents place of employment. The state therefore quickly finds the non-custodial parent employer and has them immediately deduct the child support from the employees salary. If they fail to do so the employer will be responsible for the child support.

Finds the employee? Oh I see all those under the table jobs too? Get real, the state is not the great arbitrator of child support as you seem to see it. I can tell you I was in court for his failure to pay (little over 5 or so years ago when dh adopted them) and it was a slap on the wrist and he had to pay any amount over $0 within 30 days to avoid prosecution. That is support? BTW it cost me $200/hr for the attorney for this priviledge.

I know someone right now on the dole who has 2 deadbeat ex's and money trickles in and you can report failure to pay but I know she has yet to get a cut from the employer. I suppose there is a concerned government agency there to help her out in finding the business and suing? Don't make me laugh. The only reason she gets any money is so the state gets their cut for her being on the dole....

The non-custodial parent then can request a modification but that may take months for a trial. The modification however would be rejected if it is below the state guidelines.

Extenuating circumstances that show just cause are considered, including producing children with other people which can lower one's obligations. Again I know this issue as a fact in Ohio is taken into consideration through someone else who has custody case here. As well as my own case in Georgia where ex had more children after we divorced . Sweet deal as custodial parents don't get to adjust down their fiscal responsibilities as they go along.

Furthermore, if the custodial parent loses a job or suffers health injury who then adjusts their living expenses from the 25% guideline on average that non-custodial parents enjoy? Do you really believe that children can be raised on the basis of the meager guidelines provided by the state as framework put forth by both parents? If so you are dillusional as it is hard enough for two people to combine incomes and labor and raise a family much less one person alone with 25% or so financial support....

Most people can identify times in their life when they did not work, were ill or had a drop in salary. The government typically does not recognize this and forces those even in lean times to maintain a imaginary life style that has no basis in reality. It is completely unacceptable for government to force people to live in fear of retribution on them for events out of their control.

Emotional sensationalism, they can argue need to reduce in court so they are not without recourse. They chose to have a child/ren and now must continue to provide care until the age of majority. Married parents are not absolved until then either. Don't want to pay don't play...

Here you have touched on the actual problem where one parent uses the power of government to punish the other with a life of misery. You described the very reason government should never be involved in the private lives of its citizens.

LOL...or people could own up to their choices instead of complaining and realize for each choice there is a consequence. Don't want to be miserable then make better choices. The government really is not any more on the side of the custodials than the non-custodials and you pontificate like most abusive ex spouses I have been in contact with through the years.(not sayin you are but your words are the same they use take it fwiw) A great deal of bitching about having to pay and no remorse or empathy for the children in the middle.

The overwhelming majority of parents do what comes naturally it is government involvement that creates the problem as I described. Actual dead beat dads are a very small percentage.

BS see FU Frank threads. Statistics are relevant to the pollster.

It is unfortunate that you may have met someone that did not make it easy for you. However you should not support punishment of hard working honest folks for your poor choice of a mate. Your support of this evil not only hurts non-custodial parents which you seem to not care about in a rather vicious way but also hurts the children.

I have seen both sides of it with friends so I have sympathy for your situation as a single mom but you need to wake up and realize we are not all that way and government is never the answer.

I am not a single mom, and don't need sympathy from anyone. I made some dumb mistakes and it hurt my children and scarred them permanently. I paid and continue to pay for these decisions and it sucks, but such is life. To relay the importance of making good decisions is the duty of those who fail.

It is also necessary that one learns from their mistake and try to right the wrong. I was able to move on and married my bf who even if we split I believe it would be under terms we would both agree upon and would resolve our differences without legal interference. The difference is that I chose a better mate. I also was able to get him to adopt the other 2 children from previous ex.

I am not supporting punishing good, hard working folks as they will willingly pay over the state minimums that a court order establishes. Anyone secondary problems in seperation are the responsibilty of the individual and their choice of mate, not my doing in believing that both egg and sperm donar are culpable for the well being of their progeny until they are adults....

Dieseler

01-08-2010, 02:30 PM

I appreciate this thread kahless.
As many people as I know who have been adversely affected by this, myself included as a child but never as an adult, I never really understood what was in play here.
Very enlightening.
Just started reading into the thread.

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 02:33 PM

I know someone right now on the dole who has 2 deadbeat ex's and money trickles in and you can report failure to pay but I know she has yet to get a cut from the employer. I suppose there is a concerned government agency there to help her out in finding the business and suing? Don't make me laugh. The only reason she gets any money is so the state gets their cut for her being on the dole....

I am sure you call her a deadbeat, too. I am also sure you tell her that if she doesn't want to pay, she shouldn't have played. She should have kept her legs closed. Isn't this what you're saying of the men involved?

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 02:38 PM

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 02:48 PM

moostraks

01-08-2010, 02:49 PM

at what age does a "child" "become" an adult?
do they shed a coocon?
I was driving trucks and tractors at the age of 10. I carried firearms, cut wood. I was an adult at 10.
I could grow my own food, i had the skills to survive. Of course, I wasn't treated like a child, so i wasn't a child. Childhood is man-made idea. The process of socialization is real, but a lot of our problem with older teens stems from treating them like children. it is arbitrary.

I really enjoy your thinking even if I disagree with you Torchbearer.:)

Childhood is not a man made idea it is a real concept. A child does not come equipped with the skills to be self sustaining and must evolve into adulthood. I spoke specifically previously of the lack of ability a child has due to law to be self sustaining. Nor can they enter into a relationship to own property upon which to hunt or grow. So until age of majority in the state of residency they cannot be self sustaining. Don't like it, then change the laws, but I doubt, no change that, I KNOW I would not want to live in a state run by under 18 year olds.

Contrary to your view of your 'childhood' you did not have the experience or emotional maturity a true adult should have nor should you be expected to have such. I have seen most people are not truly capable of rational maturity until sometime around 25 years old in the current society. One can force a bloom on a plant but they are more fragile than if the normal course of life took effect. Something will inevitably suffer.

If your childhood is as you say it was it explains why there is a certain defiance, authoritativeness, and independance in your nature. There is also something quietly unsettled. Child rearing is an art and not a science.

I disagree with the issue being treating them as children being the problem. I think it lies in the arbitrary nature of what we expect out of them and the herd treatment of government schools.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 02:54 PM

If your childhood is as you say it was it explains why there is a certain defiance, authoritativeness, and independance in your nature. There is also something quietly unsettled. Child rearing is an art and not a science.

I disagree with the issue being treating them as children being the problem. I think it lies in the arbitrary nature of what we expect out of them and the herd treatment of government schools.

If my childhood produced a natural libertarian, for I've been this way all my life. even registered libertarian at 18. then maybe the problem with our obamabot nation is the ideas of childhood that you seen intent on repeating.
How much time have you dedicated to the study of child socialization?

moostraks

01-08-2010, 02:56 PM

I am sure you call her a deadbeat, too. I am also sure you tell her that if she doesn't want to pay, she shouldn't have played. She should have kept her legs closed. Isn't this what you're saying of the men involved?

First off my experience was male but by no means is the situation gender exclusive.

Second off I agree with your viewpoint regarding deadbeatness in theory but if one is left with the children to rear them alone with no assistance from the former partner and the custodial parent is providing all their income for their care at the loss of the other's income and physical assistance and unable to make ends meet how is the custodial parent a deadbeat when their entire income provides all the support it is possible to pay for?

At this point living a life of destitution for both the custodial parent and the children is the consequences of her choice (your example) but that does not absolve the non-custodial parent of their responsibilities. No?

And yes she should have kept her legs closed, live and learn and be an example of what not to do and why....

moostraks

01-08-2010, 02:57 PM

If my childhood produced a natural libertarian, for I've been this way all my life. even registered libertarian at 18. then maybe the problem with our obamabot nation is the ideas of childhood that you seen intent on repeating.
How much time have you dedicated to the study of child socialization?

can you count my psycho-analyzing my parents lack of skill as a child?

What ideas of childhood are you assuming I have that run contrary to forming an adult with emotional stability and the physical capability to be self sufficient?

moostraks

01-08-2010, 03:01 PM

To think that the current spirit of the law is stalwart self-reliance is fooling oneself, as it is the government here we're talking about.

For one, accepting responsibility for one's choices rarely applies to the female side of the aisle, and to imply that it should is usually met with gasps of horror. I'm not going to get into the abortion side of things because that would just completely derail the thread, but Safe Haven laws allow a mother to simply leave a newborn in front of a hospital, firehouse or other places and completely emancipate oneself for responsibility for that child. The father never needs to be informed, no-one in fact needs to be informed, and that is that. Imagine if a father had the right, at any point in the process, to completely detach himself of any parental responsibility? Blood would run through the streets.

Shoot, let them rescind their rights. Most deadbeats don't though. They often use the money as a way to punish the custodial parent.

This really isn't a gender issue but a custodial issue, imo. Sex has consequences and two people made the decision. Know your partner is really where the problem lay...

moostraks

01-08-2010, 03:09 PM

kahless

01-08-2010, 03:20 PM

When I worked for the battered women's shelter, there was a guy who was using the dead-beat laws to punish his wife for leaving.
He beat her severely, and she was unable to take the child when she left, so he filed child support on her while she was living at the shelter knowing she couldn't pay.
I had to go as her rep. to the trial and collections police to stare in disbelief that they were putting her in jail.
She was victimized twice.

If we lived in a free society our options would be in this order of choice with government involvement only after all choices have been exhausted between the parties.

1. Shared parenting. Both parents in the childs life rather than having one as a visitor IS in most cases in the best interests of child. I am sure someone will point out how this will not work for deviants but the overwhelming majority of men are not deviants as some here would like you to believe.

2. If the parent that cannot afford to raise the child and does not wish to participate in option 1 then full custody goes to the parent that can best support the child. Either work it out or lose custody before burdening the system - taxpayers.

3. If one parent wants full custody while the other does not and does not want to participate in options 1 or 2 then no child support changes hands.

4. If a parent cannot afford to raise the child and the other parent does not wish to participate in option 1, 2 or 3 only then should there be a trial. If the last sentance is in fact true then the non-custodial parent should be expected to provide support based on actual documented expenses split 50/50 with the custodial parent. All monies must be accounted for.

The custodial parent must be held accountable for the expenses and maintain receipts. If the non-custodial fails to pay then you have a court date set to deterimine the reason for neglect. It is then determined if the failure was intentional, was it due to job loss, illness or just a dead broke dad with a best effort being made.

What I describe above would prevent honest people from wrongly being victimized by the system as well as horrific example that torchbearer described. It is also in the best interests of the children since it encourages a two parent household. It also keeps the government in most cases out of it so it does not become a burden to the courts or taxpayers.

Of course lawyers, all levels of government regardless of party and greedy lazy custodial parents hate the plan above since they lose power and their free ride off the backs of slaves.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 03:21 PM

can you count my psycho-analyzing my parents lack of skill as a child?

What ideas of childhood are you assuming I have that run contrary to forming an adult with emotional stability and the physical capability to be self sufficient?

you mean to say, what part of prolonged childhood develops dependancy on a nanny state?
Their every rule is set by the state. The state is their father, you are just an interim care giver.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 03:51 PM

you mean to say, what part of prolonged childhood develops dependancy on a nanny state?
Their every rule is set by the state. The state is their father, you are just an interim care giver.

prolonged childhood? when are they an adult in your eyes? Apparently before 10 which shows your lack of experience with children as 10 year olds do not have the emotional or physical capacity of being self sufficient. You might be able to hunt but it takes more than having killed a deer to provide all of one's daily needs. You might have been capable of running a piece of machinery but proven rational decision making decides when one should be given the keys to the car.

Should murder be legal? Should their be a consequence for broken contracts? Should there be no consequence for leaving a child to perish in a locked car on a hot day when they are strapped in a car seat? Should parents be held accountable for failure to provide food or shelter? Where do you draw the line of acceptable loss of life and where do you believe the protection of the sanctity of life occurs?

So you want anarchy?

Me, not so much...

moostraks

01-08-2010, 03:58 PM

If we lived in a free society our options would be in this order of choice with government involvement only after all choices have been exhausted between the parties.

1. Shared parenting. Both parents in the childs life rather than having one as a visitor IS in most cases in the best interests of child. I am sure someone will point out how this will not work for deviants but the overwhelming majority of men are not deviants as some here would like you to believe.

2. If the parent that cannot afford to raise the child and does not wish to participate in option 1 then full custody goes to the parent that can best support the child. Either work it out or lose custody before burdening the system - taxpayers.

3. If one parent wants full custody while the other does not and does not want to participate in options 1 or 2 then no child support changes hands.

4. If a parent cannot afford to raise the child and the other parent does not wish to participate in option 1, 2 or 3 only then should there be a trial. If the last sentance is in fact true then the non-custodial parent should be expected to provide support based on actual documented expenses split 50/50 with the custodial parent. All monies must be accounted for.

The custodial parent must be held accountable for the expenses and maintain receipts. If the non-custodial fails to pay then you have a court date set to deterimine the reason for neglect. It is then determined if the failure was intentional, was it due to job loss, illness or just a dead broke dad with a best effort being made.

What I describe above would prevent honest people from wrongly being victimized by the system as well as horrific example that torchbearer described. It is also in the best interests of the children since it encourages a two parent household. It also keeps the government in most cases out of it so it does not become a burden to the courts or taxpayers.

Of course lawyers, all levels of government regardless of party and greedy lazy custodial parents hate the plan above since they lose power and their free ride off the backs of slaves.

I actually sort of agree with you here, excepting the fact that you seem to think that all decisions in life should automatically come with a do over switch. Some decisions in life come with weightier consequences. In the case of children, especially those that were mutually desired in a former relationship, one doesn't just get to say parenting stinks and quit. They can quit when the age of majority hits or there should be something more aggressive to punish then just loss of parental rights.

Someone posted previously the safe haven laws, yeah great for infants but maybe they should research what happened in Nebraska I believe it was when it was extended to teens. If you dump a child over the safe haven infant age on the state you pay child support. Consequences suck....

If there is no consequences then there is no reason to be responsible.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 04:07 PM

prolonged childhood? when are they an adult in your eyes? Apparently before 10 which shows your lack of experience with children as 10 year olds do not have the emotional or physical capacity of being self sufficient.

I was emotionly and physical capable of surviving on my own at 10.
People got married at 13 in some cultures.
You really should study the facts on human development before you continue to project your distortions on your children. though it may already be too late for that.

can every 10 year old do as I did. no. age is arbitrary marker. some humans will never develop beyond a retarded mind.
Once you get abstract thinking and empathy down- you can negotiate successfully with other adults and enter contracts of meaning. learning survival skills come from parents, not the government.
if you can't teach your child to survive on their own by an early age, you have failed them.

i believe in small local government for sure. definitely no anarchy.
though i find it completely amusing that statist call me an anarchist and anarchist call me a statist.
People need to read more Thomas Jefferson and the dispersement of power.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 04:30 PM

I was emotionly and physical capable of surviving on my own at 10.
People got married at 13 in some cultures.
You really should study the facts on human development before you continue to project your distortions on your children. though it may already be too late for that.

can every 10 year old do as I did. no. age is arbitrary marker. some humans will never develop beyond a retarded mind.
Once you get abstract thinking and empathy down- you can negotiate successfully with other adults and enter contracts of meaning. learning survival skills come from parents, not the government.
if you can't teach your child to survive on their own by an early age, you have failed them.

i believe in small local government for sure. definitely no anarchy.
though i find it completely amusing that statist call me an anarchist and anarchist call me a statist.
People need to read more Thomas Jefferson and the dispersement of power.

We aren't talking about some cultures we are talking about our culture, no?

Lol on you getting it from both sides. I believe in small local government as well so to that end we agree.

Parents fail children by expecting them to be mini adults and providing situations beyond their maturity level and expecting the rationalism of an adult. By allowing a person to evolve into themselves slowly with sensitivity to certain halmarks of one's age and provide increasing success/failure opportunities and security you will reap better results. Try your method and let me know how it works for you.

Furthermore, your method has been tried by government schools. Wean them from the family unit while emotionally immature and teach them to thrive in community with a stranger in charge and conform to their peer groups standards.(small local government, you see) Eat or be eaten...

As for human development (and not from a book only but real life humans), I have studied enough to know you are out of you gourd in your assessments,imo. We clearly stand as polar opposites in our views.

BTW I think you think too highly of yourself at ten and time has done grave things to your memory. Unless you are elderly you would be incapable of self sufficient existence at 10 due to the laws which limit the capacity of a minor to be self sufficient (and even way back when it was probably impossible-legally) Assuming we are still refering to the lack of need for child support on this thread?

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 04:37 PM

Parents fail children by expecting them to be mini adults and providing situations beyond their maturity level and expecting the rationalism of an adult.

do you see everything you posted right there^
how do you know that is beyond their maturity level? if you treat a 14 year old like a child, he will behave like a child. if he is retarded, that is because of mental disability. but if the brain is normal, it is because of expectation.
Did I mention that this isn't my opinion but scientific research?
My degree is in sociology.
the post about child brain development and what they can be expected to learn and task they can do comes from a detailed study of socialization of children.
it is not determined by age, but by steps or progressions that all minds go through. a lot of it is environment. your exectations of what child development should be is what leads to your post above.
I'm not an exception in my family. My siblings and cousins all developed to self-sustaining at an early age. The expectation was that you were capable of adult status and responsibility around 10. And that is what happened.
This is our culture, here in the states. In rural louisiana on the farm. These country boys can survive.

The post about pro-longed childhood causing troubled teens is an actual study in criminal justice. it has backing and merit.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 04:47 PM

Torchbearer-let me attest to you what failure to allow for one to have a childhood stifles and I see this because I attempt to be extremely sensitive to my children's needs after the nightmare my eldest put me through and my allowing the state to usurp my parental authority.

In using a curriculum for homeschooling that deals with children on a mature level as mini adults I watched my child lose creativity and it was as if the spark of imagination was drowning in her. By trying to discuss ethics and force certain decision making before she was capable I was destroying a part of her soul one only strengthens by being a child.

It is the hallmark of any child force to grow up too soon due to circumstances beyond their control. It makes people too serious and lacking in ingenuity. They may be hard working but they don't know how to enjoy life to the fullest. I notice in in the Amish communities and it was the same curriculum I was using and expectations of early maturity that caused my own child's seriousness.

Having seen many of your own arguments, I don't doubt much was expected of you be it externally or internally, at an early age. It doesn't mean it is the right way to raise a well rounded child.

Keller1967

01-08-2010, 04:49 PM

the right to trial by jury is in criminal cases.

If you don't pay the child support that is decided in these "non-criminal" cases you go to jail. If you don't pay because you lost your job you go to jail. How is this not a criminal case? The punishments are treated as criminal.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 04:54 PM

Having seen many of your own arguments, I don't doubt much was expected of you be it externally or internally, at an early age. It doesn't mean it is the right way to raise a well rounded child.

yet, this child grew up understanding libertarianism through self-reliance, and most of the other kids had to be rehabed into libertarianism. which method is better?
see the thread dealing with "I was a neocon/dem/indie before I heard about ron paul" . paraphrased title.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 04:55 PM

If you don't pay the child support that is decided in these "non-criminal" cases you go to jail. If you don't pay because you lost your job you go to jail. How is this not a criminal case? The punishments are treated as criminal.

hypocrisy of law. it happens when government delves into areas it shouldn't be in.
same with drug laws.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 04:59 PM

do you see everything you posted right there^
how do you know that is beyond their maturity level? if you treat a 14 year old like a child, he will behave like a child. if he is retarded, that is because of mental disability. but if the brain is normal, it is because of expectation.
Did I mention that this isn't my opinion but scientific research?
My degree is in sociology.
the post about child brain development and what they can be expected to learn and task they can do comes from a detailed study of socialization of children.
it is not determined by age, but by steps or progressions that all minds go through. a lot of it is environment. your exectations of what child development should be is what leads to your post above.
I'm not an exception in my family. My siblings and cousins all developed to self-sustaining at an early age. The expectation was that you were capable of adult status and responsibility around 10. And that is what happened.
This is our culture, here in the states. In rural louisiana on the farm. These country boys can survive.

The post about pro-longed childhood causing troubled teens is an actual study in criminal justice. it has backing and merit.

I am sure you believe the study has merit. I disagree with you and my experiences guide my decision making.

I know what is beyond the child's specific capacity because I am involved with them. I do not have the 3 year old cook dinner because I know him. I accept the limitations of the society we are in and work within that framework while attempting to raise awareness through my willingness to openly discuss my experiences both good and bad,fwiw to those who listen. It is up to an individual to make their own choices what to leave or what to take away from the discussion.

As for what I challenge them with, please see that I walked a path of similar context to that which you advocate and I saw how it killed their spirit. So now, based on my experience, I let them chase butterflies as much as possible so they learn not to be hyper critical adults that grow up before their time. It is not a matter of stifiling them-which would be equally as cruel- but knowing them and teaching them to stop and smell the flowers while providing age appropriate situations for them to learn from and provide the security that you are there for them.

moostraks

01-08-2010, 05:03 PM

yet, this child grew up understanding libertarianism through self-reliance, and most of the other kids had to be rehabed into libertarianism. which method is better?
see the thread dealing with "I was a neocon/dem/indie before I heard about ron paul" . paraphrased title.

Lol...so you are better than others how? Was this a race? Without the benefit of some experiences you also lose certain opportunities.

I find it hard to picture you loosening your tie.:o

Again, parenting is an art not a science....

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 05:09 PM

Lol...so you are better than others how? Was this a race? Without the benefit of some experiences you also lose certain opportunities.

I find it hard to picture you loosening your tie.:o

Again, parenting is an art not a science....

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.
I started school early too. It wasn't a race, but our time is limited on this earth. I choose to not waste it chasing butterflies. They will actually come and land on you while you are fishing. I didn't miss out on anything. I got to experience more.

catdd

01-08-2010, 05:10 PM

I can personally attest to the fact that the states are allowing divorce cases to drag on for years with lawyer fees coming close to a million dollars. There's no oversight committee whatsoever and divorce lawyers are no better than serial killers with a badge.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 05:11 PM

moostraks

01-08-2010, 05:18 PM

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.
I started school early too. It wasn't a race, but our time is limited on this earth. I choose to not waste it chasing butterflies. They will actually come and land on you while you are fishing. I didn't miss out on anything. I got to experience more.

:D Multi tasking is highly over rated. I could say the same of my own experiences prior to 30 but they were often negative ones due to a difficult childhood causing poor decision making skills.

You never forget a first time if you get the time to savor the experience. Life lived fast is not the same as a full life savored.

So do you loosen your tie??

Danke

01-08-2010, 05:18 PM

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.

Have you ever done a midget toss? Or seen a Filipino entertainer make exact change out of her private part?

catdd

01-08-2010, 05:18 PM

If the divorce is mutual, you can do it through arbitration very quickly.

But if only one party wants to be an ass, they can put the other through 1000 hells and the law allows it.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 05:22 PM

Have you ever done a midget toss? Or seen a Filipino entertainer make exact change out of her private part?

NO. but i can't publish some things i have done, and most of them would be considered fantasies come true for most men.

torchbearer

01-08-2010, 05:23 PM

:D Multi tasking is highly over rated. I could say the same of my own experiences prior to 30 but they were often negative ones due to a difficult childhood causing poor decision making skills.

You never forget a first time if you get the time to savor the experience. Life lived fast is not the same as a full life savored.

So do you loosen your tie??

Dude, I was in a working successful original band for 12 years. I've lived. the tie is only their when protocal dictates.

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 06:39 PM

First off my experience was male but by no means is the situation gender exclusive.

Second off I agree with your viewpoint regarding deadbeatness in theory but if one is left with the children to rear them alone with no assistance from the former partner and the custodial parent is providing all their income for their care at the loss of the other's income and physical assistance and unable to make ends meet how is the custodial parent a deadbeat when their entire income provides all the support it is possible to pay for?

At this point living a life of destitution for both the custodial parent and the children is the consequences of her choice (your example) but that does not absolve the non-custodial parent of their responsibilities. No?

And yes she should have kept her legs closed, live and learn and be an example of what not to do and why....

Earlier you had talked about deadbeat guys in particular, but you are right; this whole mess knows no gender. You do realize a custodial parent could easily have NOT been a custodial parent? That they had that choice? Why does the non-custodial parent not get a choice, though? I always found that one odd *shrugs* I also always thought that a child shouldn't be a meal ticket. If it's really about just providing for the child, then the money should be tied to a WIC-like account, so that all transactions are accounted for and must be justified as being for the benefit of the child. As it is, there's no such accounting included. There are way too many times when the money just seems to trickle away on its way to the child.

Yeah, it's based on income of the non-custodial parent. Isn't that a little strange? I mean, how does one child's "well-being" only cost $1,000 a month, and someone else's well-being costs $10,000 a month? The assumption is that the rich parent would have spoiled that child already... what if that's not the case? What if they would have just purchased another yacht instead? Is it really about making sure the child has "enough" to live, or is it about punishing the non-custodial parent? Moreover, what happens to the child support money?

A quick browse on the internet for child support Q&A reveals...

Q: I'll be inheriting $100k from my father's estate. What will happen to my support obligation?

A: State support laws usually have provisions for sudden, one-time injections of income. The court will possibly have discretion to award a lump-sum amount under certain conditions, or might do something different. For example, if your state's percentage for one child is 20%, the court might take $20k and just have you pay it over the rest of the child's minority. If there is 10 years left on the obligation, that would be an extra $2000 a year, or $167 a month.

Isn't that great? Grandpa dies, and the kid gets money. The State deciding who gets your cash when you die, including the grandkids you probably didn't get to see all that often.

Elyse's Question: My husband has not worked for the last 9 months, and things are just about over between us. Would the court make him get a job to pay child support?

Brette's Answer: Your husband is obligated to pay child support - there is a minimum that must be paid even if a person is unemployed.

This one tickled me. The guy hasn't worked for nine months, so the standard here is getting by WITHOUT his income. This woman will actually MAKE MONEY divorcing him! He'll be obligated to come up with money to support the child if she divorces him, but if they stay together he can keep not working.

Kay's Question: Under what circumstances is the spouse of the non-custodial parent (me) required to pay?

Brette's Answer: You're not, he is. His household income is calculated when determining child support. That includes income brought in by you. However the order for payment applies only to him. You have no responsibility to his child.

Another tickler. Not only must the person in question support their child, which you've already noted is the only moral thing to do, but their new spouse, who might never have met the custodial parent and has next to zero rights when it comes to the child in question... that person's income is counted towards calculating support.

Mary's Question: My husband and I have been together for 12 years. My youngest child was six month old when me met, and he has been the only father-figure in her life. Is he required to pay me child support?

Brette's Answer: Your husband is only required to pay child support if he legally adopted your child.

Interesting. It seems that if you had none of the "fun" of conceiving a child, but decided to adopt one, you are still on the hook for support if you divorce. Go figure?

* * *

So yeah, I'm still sticking with the fact that individual cases should be decided on their own merits, rather than "woe is (custodial parent)" and "woe is (non-custodial parent)" stereotypes. The laws, though, are pretty shitty all around.

MelissaWV

01-08-2010, 06:41 PM

Oops. My bad. I see we're making assumptions about one another and deciding that life experience dictates one's ability to comment on this :rolleyes:

kahless

01-08-2010, 08:16 PM

It gets worse MelissaWV. Do you or anyone remember Bill Bradley? He would not be where he is in politics if he did not make a deal with the devil (anti-father feminist groups) in passing his "Bradley Amendment". The number of the bill in bold is of no surprise.

Excerpts from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

In United States law, the Bradley Amendment is the common name given to any of a number of amendments offered by Senator Bill Bradley, the most notable of which is the amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) which requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations.

The Amendment was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.

The Law overrides any state's statue of limitations
The law disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
The law requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

The Amendment has been a controversial law and has resulted in several notorious examples of unintended consequences including:

A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.
A Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.
A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.

.......a child support agency can move quickly to seize income and assets of a delinquent noncustodial parent without first passing through a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing process."

"The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:

In a coma
A captive of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War In jail
Medically incapacitated
Lost their job but were confident of another so did nothing until it was too late
Did not know they could not ask for retroactive adjustments and waited too long.
Cannot afford a lawyer to seek adjustment when adjustment was warranted
Wouldn’t use the legal system even if they could, feeling it alien from their world, so don’t ask for a reduction when the legal establishment expects them to.
Some say this measure is a violation of due process and cruel and unusual as it removes the use of human discretion from dealing with individual cases, not to mention removing human compassion. But non-custodial fathers do not have the money to fight a constitutional case."

As of 2004[update], the Bradley Amendment was being challenged as unconstitutional and was the subject of a repeal effort.

February 2006 the court case has been dismissed and Congress has made no visible effort to reform the Bradley amendment

moostraks

01-09-2010, 10:24 AM

Earlier you had talked about deadbeat guys in particular, but you are right; this whole mess knows no gender. You do realize a custodial parent could easily have NOT been a custodial parent? That they had that choice? Why does the non-custodial parent not get a choice, though? I always found that one odd *shrugs* I also always thought that a child shouldn't be a meal ticket. If it's really about just providing for the child, then the money should be tied to a WIC-like account, so that all transactions are accounted for and must be justified as being for the benefit of the child. As it is, there's no such accounting included. There are way too many times when the money just seems to trickle away on its way to the child.

Yeah, it's based on income of the non-custodial parent. Isn't that a little strange? I mean, how does one child's "well-being" only cost $1,000 a month, and someone else's well-being costs $10,000 a month? The assumption is that the rich parent would have spoiled that child already... what if that's not the case? What if they would have just purchased another yacht instead? Is it really about making sure the child has "enough" to live, or is it about punishing the non-custodial parent? Moreover, what happens to the child support money?

A quick browse on the internet for child support Q&A reveals...

Isn't that great? Grandpa dies, and the kid gets money. The State deciding who gets your cash when you die, including the grandkids you probably didn't get to see all that often.

This one tickled me. The guy hasn't worked for nine months, so the standard here is getting by WITHOUT his income. This woman will actually MAKE MONEY divorcing him! He'll be obligated to come up with money to support the child if she divorces him, but if they stay together he can keep not working.

Another tickler. Not only must the person in question support their child, which you've already noted is the only moral thing to do, but their new spouse, who might never have met the custodial parent and has next to zero rights when it comes to the child in question... that person's income is counted towards calculating support.

Interesting. It seems that if you had none of the "fun" of conceiving a child, but decided to adopt one, you are still on the hook for support if you divorce. Go figure?

* * *

So yeah, I'm still sticking with the fact that individual cases should be decided on their own merits, rather than "woe is (custodial parent)" and "woe is (non-custodial parent)" stereotypes. The laws, though, are pretty shitty all around.

Hey just dropped by and saw your rants as to what you view as unfair. Standards were enforced because people are irresponsible. Your way of reasoning is the logic of the selfish and I can't see where we would agree on the matter other than I dislike the state enforcing issues as much as the next person. But- I think people should own up to their responsibilities.

If the grandparent dies and the couple was together chances are high the child would reap the benefit of infused income. If you create a child and refuse to care for (receive custody or pay support to the custodial parent/party) then there should be repercussions to prevent further situations of the same sort. If you get involved with someone who has children from a former relationship it is a package deal. Don't like the package then find someone else. If you adopt a child you have obligated yourself to that child until the age of majority.

I am curious as to where the household income comes into play at as I know in Georgia that does not occur. As such, buyer beware on this issue as it must vary state to state. If you don't want to help your partner with his former responsibilties then keep this in mind for your own decisions.
You seem to dismiss the idea that it all begins prior to the creation or relationship obligation in the dependants life. In order to solve a problem you must get to the root of the issue and dismissing the beginning scenario is ridiculous, imo.

moostraks

01-09-2010, 10:27 AM

Dude, I was in a working successful original band for 12 years. I've lived. the tie is only their when protocal dictates.

well there is a side of you I would not have predicted :p

moostraks

01-09-2010, 10:32 AM

kahless

01-09-2010, 12:18 PM

You will not find much support from custodial parents

I do not believe that since new families are ending up on both sides of this issue. You have one spouse in the relationship being the non-custodial parent from a prior marriage and their new spouse being the custodial parent. Regardless no one wants to see their spouse end up in jail for being a few dollars behind in an economic down turn, job loss or illness.

It goes to common sense that they are not going to be able to pay child support if they are in jail. In fact the government makes it worse since they could very well lose their job due to imprisonment and/or be physically injured or killed in jail. Obviously this would make receiving payment much more difficult.

All parents are slaves to minor children in some respects. It is part of the job description. It is part of the job description. Don't like it then don't apply. There are no do overs.

When a spouse in a married couple gets sick and loses a job they do not end up with an arrest warrant, physically injured or killed in jail for being behind on a debt.

I have no dog in this fight since my kids are adults and I am too old to be having more of them. However the rhetoric in your replies indicates you seem to believe people deserve this kind of government retribution when it is of no fault of their own. Why are you in a movement that supports liberty is beyond me since your views clearly lean fascist.

It also sounds like you want to punish the world for what your ex did to you. I am guessing that when you made your decision to have children with him you did not expect the outcome just like the innocents that I describe here that are on the other end of the equation.

moostraks

01-09-2010, 01:02 PM

I do not believe that since new families are ending up on both sides of this issue. You have one spouse in the relationship being the non-custodial parent from a prior marriage and their new spouse being the custodial parent. Regardless no one wants to see their spouse end up in jail for being a few dollars behind in an economic down turn, job loss or illness.

It goes to common sense that they are not going to be able to pay child support if they are in jail. In fact the government makes it worse since they could very well lose their job due to imprisonment and/or be physically injured or killed in jail. Obviously this would make receiving payment much more difficult.

When a spouse in a married couple gets sick and loses a job they do not end up with an arrest warrant, physically injured or killed in jail for being behind on a debt.

I have no dog in this fight since my kids are adults and I am too old to be having more of them. However the rhetoric in your replies indicates you seem to believe people deserve this kind of government retribution when it is of no fault of their own. Why are you in a movement that supports liberty is beyond me since your views clearly lean fascist.

It also sounds like you want to punish the world for what your ex did to you. I am guessing that when you made your decision to have children with him you did not expect the outcome just like the innocents that I describe here that are on the other end of the equation.

uh...clip the whole sentence rather than picking and choosing out of context portions of what I type. The whole sentence was refering to your dramatics which you seem intent on over substance.

When someone marries someone with children from a former relationship they buy into the whole deal. If they don't like it they need to find a new relationship. It seems you are intent on waving the magic wand for non-custodials. Tough. Once you have sex you live with the consequences. When society begins to take the act of sex more seriously everyone will be much better off!

For example, prior to my spouse adopting my two he put healthcare on them while they still were the responsibilty of their sperm donar. Not for a day, a week, or a month but for years. That is what a real man does who loves and cares for those with whom he is involved. This is someone with moral character and the type of person I am proud to have as a partner. This was not cheap insurance either.

I don't want to punish the world for my mistake in decisions, I want people to be responsible for their actions. Society is too busy passing the pain onto someone else and legitimizing bad behaviour because of their own wants rather than owning up to their responsibilty in the problem.

The only innocent people here are the children that non-paying parents are neglecting. Neglect is a crime and as such there should be repercussions.

As for someone within a relationship having compassion in event of catastrophe, if they chose their mate better then they would not be arguing it in court. They would be able to handle this issue outside on their own. You have to start at the root of the problem and it begins with a choice.

MelissaWV

01-09-2010, 01:08 PM

Hey just dropped by and saw your rants as to what you view as unfair. Standards were enforced because people are irresponsible. Your way of reasoning is the logic of the selfish and I can't see where we would agree on the matter other than I dislike the state enforcing issues as much as the next person. But- I think people should own up to their responsibilities.

If the grandparent dies and the couple was together chances are high the child would reap the benefit of infused income. If you create a child and refuse to care for (receive custody or pay support to the custodial parent/party) then there should be repercussions to prevent further situations of the same sort. If you adopt a child you have obligated yourself to that child until the age of majority.

You seem to dismiss the idea that it all begins prior to the creation or relationship obligation in the dependants life. In order to solve a problem you must get to the root of the issue and dismissing the beginning scenario is ridiculous, imo.

The bold part is interesting. Chances are high, so you don't mind if the state just assumes the chances were 100%. Why, precisely, do you assume the grandparents would want the product of their child's one night stand (potentially) or failed relationship (by definition) to reap the rewards of their life's savings?

The purple part is also interesting. The adopting parent is going to be punished because they decided to be a part of their step-child's life, but the relationship didn't work out with the biological parent? That seems unusually cruel. The second part, where you talk about dismissing the beginning scenario, intrigues me. Let's take a couple, and for the sake of statistics we'll make it a "single mom" and two men. Let's even give her the benefit of the doubt, and say that she was in a bad marriage that ended when the child was still an infant. The father is on the hook for child support. Now, the kid is five or so, and she finds the love of her life. When the kid is seven, this new guy even officially adopts the child. Unfortunately, when the child is ten, things turn south and there's another divorce.

So. The person who is responsible for the child coming into being should pay child support? Or the person who adopted the child should pay child support? And why does the mom in that scenario, who's on the hook for various bad choices, simply get the child-rearing paid for?

What if, in that same scenario, she'd simply palmed off the kid when it was first born, giving it up for adoption? Should she have to pay for part of the child's upbringing? If we're to follow the logic you have employed throughout this thread, then a mother giving her baby up for adoption should be on the hook for some financial obligation. No? Why not? A mother can terminate her maternal rights, give up a child, and be under no financial obligation. A father cannot simply say "no, I don't want to be a daddy, and I don't want to pay."

Of course, that to you is a rant, and it seems perfectly fair, and I'm the one being unreasonable. Think that all you'd like, but it won't make the system any more twisted than it already is. The laws are crooked and broad, and generally unfair. I'm glad you see a non-custodial parent as responsible, financially, for a child they have little or no say in raising, and the custodial parent as automatically responsible and worthy of being paid for their services. I've heard the world is much easier in black & white ;) I'll still stick to the notion that cases should be heard on their own merits, and that if the child is what is important, the system should not be skewed so that it's far more about punishment than about providing a safe, healthy environment for the child to grow up in.

kahless

01-09-2010, 02:13 PM

uh...clip the whole sentence rather than picking and choosing out of context portions of what I type. The whole sentence was refering to your dramatics which you seem intent on over substance.

Posting the actual Bradley amendment to the Constutition that sends Americans to be prison for debt without a trial regardless of the circumstances (i.e. hospitalization, coma, or captured in Iraq) is now considered dramatics. LMAO!

When someone marries someone with children from a former relationship they buy into the whole deal. If they don't like it they need to find a new relationship. It seems you are intent on waving the magic wand for non-custodials. Tough. Once you have sex you live with the consequences. When society begins to take the act of sex more seriously everyone will be much better off!

For example, prior to my spouse adopting my two he put healthcare on them while they still were the responsibilty of their sperm donar. Not for a day, a week, or a month but for years. That is what a real man does who loves and cares for those with whom he is involved. This is someone with moral character and the type of person I am proud to have as a partner. This was not cheap insurance either.

I don't want to punish the world for my mistake in decisions, I want people to be responsible for their actions. Society is too busy passing the pain onto someone else and legitimizing bad behaviour because of their own wants rather than owning up to their responsibilty in the problem.

The only innocent people here are the children that non-paying parents are neglecting. Neglect is a crime and as such there should be repercussions.

As for someone within a relationship having compassion in event of catastrophe, if they chose their mate better then they would not be arguing it in court. They would be able to handle this issue outside on their own. You have to start at the root of the problem and it begins with a choice.

If you really cared about children you would agree that they need both parents in their lives and both parents supporting them. Not one forced to be a visitor and subject to imprisonment for falling behind a few bucks due to a hospitalization, illness or job loss. You continue to be for a policy of vengeance against honest innocent non-custodial parents that fall behind through no fault of their own for whatever reason

What I wrote below is clearly not waving a magic wand. As Torchbearer demonstrated these laws do not just effect men but woman that are victims of physical abuse. In his example after being physically abused her abuser used the system to have the government abuse her again with imprisonment through no fault of her own.

If we lived in a free society our options would be in this order of choice with government involvement only after all choices have been exhausted between the parties.

1. Shared parenting. Both parents in the childs life rather than having one as a visitor IS in most cases in the best interests of child. I am sure someone will point out how this will not work for deviants but the overwhelming majority of men are not deviants as some here would like you to believe.

2. If the parent that cannot afford to raise the child and does not wish to participate in option 1 then full custody goes to the parent that can best support the child. Either work it out or lose custody before burdening the system - taxpayers.

3. If one parent wants full custody while the other does not and does not want to participate in options 1 or 2 then no child support changes hands.

4. If a parent cannot afford to raise the child and the other parent does not wish to participate in option 1, 2 or 3 only then should there be a trial. If the last sentance is in fact true then the non-custodial parent should be expected to provide support based on actual documented expenses split 50/50 with the custodial parent. All monies must be accounted for.

The custodial parent must be held accountable for the expenses and maintain receipts. If the non-custodial fails to pay then you have a court date set to deterimine the reason for neglect. It is then determined if the failure was intentional, was it due to job loss, illness or just a dead broke dad with a best effort being made.

What I describe above would prevent honest people from wrongly being victimized by the system as well as horrific example that torchbearer described. It is also in the best interests of the children since it encourages both parents to remain in the childs life. It also keeps the government in most cases out of it so it does not become a burden to the courts or taxpayers.

moostraks

01-09-2010, 07:42 PM

Posting the actual Bradley amendment to the Constutition that sends Americans to be prison for debt without a trial regardless of the circumstances (i.e. hospitalization, coma, or captured in Iraq) is now considered dramatics. LMAO!

If you really cared about children you would agree that they need both parents in their lives and both parents supporting them. Not one forced to be a visitor and subject to imprisonment for falling behind a few bucks due to a hospitalization, illness or job loss. You continue to be for a policy of vengeance against honest innocent non-custodial parents that fall behind through no fault of their own for whatever reason

What I wrote below is clearly not waving a magic wand. As Torchbearer demonstrated these laws do not just effect men but woman that are victims of physical abuse. In his example after being physically abused her abuser used the system to have the government abuse her again with imprisonment through no fault of her own.

no-claiming being forced to be responsible to ones children is slavery is dramatics...stop putting words in my mouth.

I do care about children and think that if there are two stable parents then 50/50 split is the way to go with the home to be maintained for the children and the adults leave on their 50% time off. Don't assume anything with me as I told you previously we agree to some extent.

I just don't buy into the drama you espouse regarding all these well intentioned individuals who are hospitalized and can't pay. The fact that they are not able to arbitrate out of court is the result of under estimating the need to only have a relationship with stable people you can trust. You keep ignoring that the problem begins somewhere other than where you propose it does. The court only intervenes when someone demands them to and when two people are unable to cooperate on their own.

moostraks

01-09-2010, 08:21 PM

The bold part is interesting. Chances are high, so you don't mind if the state just assumes the chances were 100%. Why, precisely, do you assume the grandparents would want the product of their child's one night stand (potentially) or failed relationship (by definition) to reap the rewards of their life's savings?

The purple part is also interesting. The adopting parent is going to be punished because they decided to be a part of their step-child's life, but the relationship didn't work out with the biological parent? That seems unusually cruel. The second part, where you talk about dismissing the beginning scenario, intrigues me. Let's take a couple, and for the sake of statistics we'll make it a "single mom" and two men. Let's even give her the benefit of the doubt, and say that she was in a bad marriage that ended when the child was still an infant. The father is on the hook for child support. Now, the kid is five or so, and she finds the love of her life. When the kid is seven, this new guy even officially adopts the child. Unfortunately, when the child is ten, things turn south and there's another divorce.

So. The person who is responsible for the child coming into being should pay child support? Or the person who adopted the child should pay child support? And why does the mom in that scenario, who's on the hook for various bad choices, simply get the child-rearing paid for?

What if, in that same scenario, she'd simply palmed off the kid when it was first born, giving it up for adoption? Should she have to pay for part of the child's upbringing? If we're to follow the logic you have employed throughout this thread, then a mother giving her baby up for adoption should be on the hook for some financial obligation. No? Why not? A mother can terminate her maternal rights, give up a child, and be under no financial obligation. A father cannot simply say "no, I don't want to be a daddy, and I don't want to pay."

Of course, that to you is a rant, and it seems perfectly fair, and I'm the one being unreasonable. Think that all you'd like, but it won't make the system any more twisted than it already is. The laws are crooked and broad, and generally unfair. I'm glad you see a non-custodial parent as responsible, financially, for a child they have little or no say in raising, and the custodial parent as automatically responsible and worthy of being paid for their services. I've heard the world is much easier in black & white ;) I'll still stick to the notion that cases should be heard on their own merits, and that if the child is what is important, the system should not be skewed so that it's far more about punishment than about providing a safe, healthy environment for the child to grow up in.

No the state will intervene when adults can't work it out on their own and the state is brought into the picture. Then when someone cannot form an agreement on their own and recieves a lump sum, guess it sucks to be them. Given your example I can't fathom a way in which one partner could receive $100,000 and it wouldn't affect the household in a positive manner. People should want to care for their offspring. The level of selfishness is just overwhelming from everyone responding regarding this issue. The grandparents chose whom to will the money to and should be aware of what the consequences of the action will result in. It matters not under what circumstance the child was conceived as we aren't talking about rape but consensual sex. A choice was made and so be the consequences.

You seem to think custodial parents live high on the hog. Trust me there are much better ways to make money than by getting knocked up or assuming custody.

Punish the adoptive parent? That is really funny since what an adoptive parent should be concerned about is that their child is being cared for and not the punitive nature of contributing to the welfare of their child. When you adopt it is as if the natural parent never existed. If someone adopts they should place as much weight upon that decision as anyone who choses to have sex to conceive would if not more because they are guaranteeing the child that they will care for it. It isn't a damn puppy for pete's sake. The adoption is a person making a contract to the child not the natural custodial parent.

As for a mother being allowed to put the child up for adoption it takes consent from both natural parents to do so. When the child is adopted the natural parent terminates their rights. This negates any claim to and from the child and natural parent. They are strangers.

Yes I think you are being incredibly selfish considering the substance of your argument. Therefore it comes across as a rant. What is amusing is that you think I support people using the system. Clue in here: there is a way to have children and not be a part of the system. Know your partner!!!!!! The system can only bite you when you participate.

When one party makes an agreement to participate in the life of a child by the initial act of having sex with a partner who might potential hold them to that idea then they made their first fatal mistake. The rest is their problem to work out. THe system could only be seen as unfair if one was mandated to participate and you are not unless you make several mistakes to place yourself in their tentacles. The wise will heed this advice and steer clear!

kahless

01-09-2010, 08:31 PM

no-claiming being forced to be responsible to ones children is slavery is dramatics...stop putting words in my mouth.

Here are so simple facts you continue to ignore.

1. Forced separation from your childen without a trial with no wrong doing.
2. Forced to pay money to another person against your will that does not require any accountability that is used for the child. (all too often not leaving the ncp enough money to care for the child since the cp did not use the funds for the child)
3. Forced to work in a profession against your will since the government dictates that profession is in the best interests of the child due to ability to earn.

Sounds like slavery to me and if not slavery clearly breaks the basics of our constitution. Not to mention a system that increases the risk of child neglect.

1.Punishment without wrongdoing (Eighth Amendment),
2.Loss of parental rights (First Amendment),
3.Loss of the right to a trial by jury.
4.Arbitrary restrictions on personal liberties,
5.Negatively impacting the pursuit of Happiness,
6.Made to pay child support without the right to question that the money is going for necessities (Due Process – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment), and
7.Made to work to their full potential so as to maximize the child support paid (Thirteenth Amendment),

I do care about children and think that if there are two stable parents then 50/50 split is the way to go with the home to be maintained for the children and the adults leave on their 50% time off. Don't assume anything with me as I told you previously we agree to some extent.

I just don't buy into the drama you espouse regarding all these well intentioned individuals who are hospitalized and can't pay. The fact that they are not able to arbitrate out of court is the result of under estimating the need to only have a relationship with stable people you can trust. You keep ignoring that the problem begins somewhere other than where you propose it does. The court only intervenes when someone demands them to and when two people are unable to cooperate on their own.

FACT: If you are I were put in the system right now, lost our job and did not have any savings we would quickly be in contempt and a warrant would be issued for our arrest.

It is a system that has been easily abused also. For example to seek revenge on any American right now all that is needed is a name and address regardless of whether that person has a child and no regard if the person named is the biological father of the child. You simply submit the request for support and without a trial the state starts the process. If the address is unknown the state will use the federal new hires database to track the person. The federal new hires database was established as part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which was a consequence of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America".

So without a trial or a court order the state will contact the employer and begin immediate deduction of child support based upon that states guidelines. Without warning deductions begin. The person named can request a trial however that could take months meanwhile the perpetrator just wrecked havoc on someones life that may or may not have even fathered a child. If they refused to submit since they claim they never had sex with the person and switch jobs they are held in contempt and a warrant is then issued for their arrest.

This abuse scenario above has played out time and time again by those naming the wrong parent. There have also been some high profile cases where DNA evidence proved the person named was not the biological father. The court however claimed since they were already paying and it was best interests of the child they must continue to do so. California is such a lovely state.

moostraks

01-09-2010, 09:28 PM

Here are so simple facts you continue to ignore.

1. Forced separation from your childen without a trial with no wrong doing.
2. Forced to pay money to another person against your will that does not require any accountability that is used for the child. (all too often not leaving the ncp enough money to care for the child since the cp did not use the funds for the child)
3. Forced to work in a profession against your will since the government dictates that profession is in the best interests of the child due to ability to earn.

Sounds like slavery to me and if not slavery clearly breaks the basics of our constitution. Not to mention a system that increases the risk of child neglect.

1.Punishment without wrongdoing (Eighth Amendment),
2.Loss of parental rights (First Amendment),
3.Loss of the right to a trial by jury.
4.Arbitrary restrictions on personal liberties,
5.Negatively impacting the pursuit of Happiness,
6.Made to pay child support without the right to question that the money is going for necessities (Due Process – Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment), and
7.Made to work to their full potential so as to maximize the child support paid (Thirteenth Amendment),

FACT: If you are I were put in the system right now, lost our job and did not have any savings we would quickly be in contempt and a warrant would be issued for our arrest.

It is a system that has been easily abused also. For example to seek revenge on any American right now all that is needed is a name and address regardless of whether that person has a child and no regard if the person named is the biological father of the child. You simply submit the request for support and without a trial the state starts the process. If the address is unknown the state will use the federal new hires database to track the person. The federal new hires database was established as part of the 1996 Welfare Reform Act which was a consequence of Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America".

So without a trial or a court order the state will contact the employer and begin immediate deduction of child support based upon that states guidelines. Without warning deductions begin. The person named can request a trial however that could take months meanwhile the perpetrator just wrecked havoc on someones life that may or may not have even fathered a child. If they refused to submit since they claim they never had sex with the person and switch jobs they are held in contempt and a warrant is then issued for their arrest.

This abuse scenario above has played out time and time again by those naming the wrong parent. There have also been some high profile cases where DNA evidence proved the person named was not the biological father. The court however claimed since they were already paying and it was best interests of the child they must continue to do so. California is such a lovely state.

not going point by point on this as you have too much hate and energy and I am quite frankly not on the same page as you as we disagree where the problem begins:
FACT: You chose the wrong person to have sex with if the rest of your scenario comes true above
FACT:You can have a child and not involve the system
FACT:some situations you cannot extricate yourself from easily and must suffer some hardship

Moral of the story:abstinence or know the state laws and be prepared for a long term connection to anyone with whom you choose to have sex.

If you drink and drive bad things might happen. If you have sex the same thing could be said. No one makes someone drink and drive and they don't deserve compassion when bad stuff happens. If you have sex I say the same thing applies. You choose to have sex and you choose whom to have it with so accept responsibilty for the problems that may follow.

kahless

01-09-2010, 10:13 PM

not going point by point on this as you have too much hate

Posting facts does not equal hate. But yes I like most other people here do hate to see peoples constitutional rights violated whether it is this issue or the many other violations we see posted in this forum on a daily basis.

and energy and I am quite frankly not on the same page as you as we disagree where the problem begins:

FACT: You chose the wrong person to have sex with if the rest of your scenario comes true above
FACT:You can have a child and not involve the system
FACT:some situations you cannot extricate yourself from easily and must suffer some hardship

Moral of the story:abstinence or know the state laws and be prepared for a long term connection to anyone with whom you choose to have sex.

If you drink and drive bad things might happen. If you have sex the same thing could be said. No one makes someone drink and drive and they don't deserve compassion when bad stuff happens. If you have sex I say the same thing applies. You choose to have sex and you choose whom to have it with so accept responsibilty for the problems that may follow.

I agree with you on the above with the exception that the government however does not have a right to punish those for what you describe. The intention of the laws is suppossed to be in the best interests of the child. I have demonstrated they are in fact not in the best interests of the child or anyone for that matter. Not the parents, the child or the taxpayers. The only ones benefiting here are the special interest groups, lawyers and government that feeds at the trough.

By your own words you chose to have sex with the wrong person and if you were the non-custodial parent things could have been allot different for you. Regardless of your decision I believe your constitutional rights should not be violated for that choice nor anyones for that matter.

btw - you know who else is benefiting believe or not, the military industrial complex. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are making a fortune on providing the collection and people tracking services for states and federal government. No surprises here I suppose.

giddyup

01-09-2010, 10:28 PM

MelissaWV

01-10-2010, 10:11 AM

moostraks

01-10-2010, 01:20 PM

Pardon me for being a bit green on the whole concept of Libertarianism, but from what I've gleaned so far, isn't the idea that we need less government involvement in interpersonal matters?

I won't get into the intricacies of who I believe is right and wrong in terms of responsibility, child support, etc. I've lived both sides of the coin and still believe that at the heart of the matter, the power of the family court is being misused repeatedly. Power it should not even have. A civil court should not have the power to essentially prosecute individuals without due process and turn a failure of social responsibility (caring for ones children after divorce) into a crime. Period.

This guy is a prime example of the failings of the family court system:

http://www.thepsychoexwife.com/

His other blog is a nice source of information on family law news and stories from across the country:

http://www.mrcustodycoach.com/blog/

And no one has even mentioned the MEN who have been emotionally and physically abused by their partners and are then kept from their children while being forced to pay child support?

http://shrink4men.wordpress.com

It sounds like what you are saying moostraks is that it is okay that these laws exist because they've benefited many people like you, even though in (many many) other situations the family court violates the civil liberties of individuals (usually the non-custodial caregiver). You seem to be justifying the violation of their civil liberties simply because they should have chosen a better partner or never had kids with their ex. Am I misunderstanding something here about you... or the idea of personal liberty?

What I don't think people are hearing is that Liberty is based upon freedom through responsibilty. That we get the government we embrace on this issue by using its services. The emphasis seems to be constantly ignoring the conditions and NUMEROUS choices which cause one to be in the predicament. As well as unbridled selfishness towards ones children under the guise of entitlement of the adult to absolve themselves of responsibility at will due to the adult's rights. No different imo than abortion advocates that ignore the obvious.

Could we not use this argument to rationalize repercussions for any action which we choose with ramifications afterwards? Where do we draw the line for reasonable standards? Well depends on how much of an anarchist you are I guess...

OP is trying to make it seem that the state will seek out parents, the cost of support is completely unreasonable, custodials fritter the money away on something other than child related expenses, and that numerous choices don't abound to cause one to be fighting the state for respect.

I offered my experience that the time to change the situation is well prior to being involved in the system. That you have to take numerous steps to be in their claws. Furthermore undiscussed so far once you get in their grasp you have numerous ways to fight the situation:hire a better attorney than the s.o., disappear, murder come to mind right offhand. All carry subsequent problems. Make your choices. Why is it that the arguments are mostly steering towards relinquish debt burdens rather than increase physical custody? As previously stated I believe the 50/50 split is most fair and this goes from income to dwelling.

However most of the arguments I have seen have been greed motivated, absurd what ifs, or tragic few and far betweens of war vets carted off to jail. Sorry but the drinking and driving analogy comes to mind here regarding the few and far betweens.

My experience and numerous studies show it is far more often that the non-custodial parent get off much easier than a custodial parent and that child support doesn't cover the fair 50% share the non-custodial parent should be ponying up. I couldn't even fathom how much child support loss is written off by custodial parents who don't have the ability to go after the non-custodials for the money they owe to the child. The children suffer from the seperation and loss of an intact household much less selfish people who don't want the burden of a weekly debt and the resentment spewed at them and the custodial parent.

What this thread has done in short order is restore my belief that a substantial portion of the liberty community is a group of selfish, bitter people who hear a manner in which they can try to make non-accountability and irresponsibilty seem like a positive character trait by advocating for no government standards on any issue.

moostraks

01-10-2010, 01:33 PM

Posting facts does not equal hate. But yes I like most other people here do hate to see peoples constitutional rights violated whether it is this issue or the many other violations we see posted in this forum on a daily basis.

I agree with you on the above with the exception that the government however does not have a right to punish those for what you describe. The intention of the laws is suppossed to be in the best interests of the child. I have demonstrated they are in fact not in the best interests of the child or anyone for that matter. Not the parents, the child or the taxpayers. The only ones benefiting here are the special interest groups, lawyers and government that feeds at the trough.

By your own words you chose to have sex with the wrong person and if you were the non-custodial parent things could have been allot different for you. Regardless of your decision I believe your constitutional rights should not be violated for that choice nor anyones for that matter.

btw - you know who else is benefiting believe or not, the military industrial complex. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Northrup Grumman are making a fortune on providing the collection and people tracking services for states and federal government. No surprises here I suppose.

I couldn't be the non-custodial he was abusive and was an unfit parent. The only way I could be non-custodial was if I put them up for adoption. We paid the price of my decisions (including not putting them up for adoption) and while unpleasant as they were adversity builds character.

I was lost regarding your attitude when you pulled out the leftist socialist analogy for my experiences. So it has been down hill from there...

We disagree on the issue that forcing someone who cannot make arrangements without government intervention be obligated to pay. We will never agree because we have different life experiences that have formed our opinions. I cannot feel pity for people based upon your arguments. Reality is not the cases you describe of the few but the the volumes of children living in poverty due to non-paying non-custodial parents. We don't solve the problem by increasing the incentive to abandon children. Based upon your suggestions you would have parents flee in large numbers because of the lack of accountability and the impossible nature of raising children alone.

Uncle Emanuel Watkins

01-10-2010, 01:36 PM

I really enjoy your thinking even if I disagree with you Torchbearer.:)

Childhood is not a man made idea it is a real concept. A child does not come equipped with the skills to be self sustaining and must evolve into adulthood. I spoke specifically previously of the lack of ability a child has due to law to be self sustaining. Nor can they enter into a relationship to own property upon which to hunt or grow. So until age of majority in the state of residency they cannot be self sustaining. Don't like it, then change the laws, but I doubt, no change that, I KNOW I would not want to live in a state run by under 18 year olds.

Contrary to your view of your 'childhood' you did not have the experience or emotional maturity a true adult should have nor should you be expected to have such. I have seen most people are not truly capable of rational maturity until sometime around 25 years old in the current society. One can force a bloom on a plant but they are more fragile than if the normal course of life took effect. Something will inevitably suffer.

If your childhood is as you say it was it explains why there is a certain defiance, authoritativeness, and independance in your nature. There is also something quietly unsettled. Child rearing is an art and not a science.

I disagree with the issue being treating them as children being the problem. I think it lies in the arbitrary nature of what we expect out of them and the herd treatment of government schools.

I will agree with you about Torchbearer.
Being an American is about that one self evident and unalienable Truth we can't deny. Anything outside of that Truth is the same exact flesh and blood in the lessor tyrannies outside of our nation's borders. Why would we have better business executives, lawyers or teachers than they? We don't. We just have a better political system based on a natural law.

kahless

01-10-2010, 01:52 PM

Ethek

01-10-2010, 07:20 PM

moostraks, your last few posts are a complete distortion of what I posted. No where in any of my posts did I say that parents should not support their children, skirt their responsibility or abandon their children. That is just plain ridiculous and no longer warrants me to waste my time replying point by point to that complete and utter nonsense.

In fact I have stated the obvious problems with the system and alternatives that prevent children from living in poverty without the US violating multiple constitutional rights of its citizens.

Bottomline I have no idea why you support this movement when your posts in this thread condone complete violation of Constitutional rights and retribution of parents at the hands of government. Your beliefs are completely counter to the message liberty.

I would say I am equally bewildered with Moontraks view on use of force by the courts. Marriage is a voluntary contract of two people. It is entirely voluntary to stay in that contract. Both partners are equally responsible for their situation in life. Going into and coming out of any marriage, a situation might be better , or it might be worse. The trick is kids and them being introduced in the middle of a marriage.

Enormous benefit is to be had for the kids when both parents are available AND emotionally nurturing. When one of the two or both parties in the marriage 'agree' to end the relationship those opportunities present for the children are gone. Expecting a wage earner to pony up and simply not be around for the trouble they are worth amounts to involuntary servitude when force of state is involved. If money is the fix they are better off with wage earner anyway.

Both parties make a choice to enter into the contract of marriage, both chose to fulfill basic biologic desires, both chose to work or not to work, to keep wage earning skills current and to weight the cost of leaving the job market, to be involved or not involved with the raising of the children. Both choose to have the faculties to be there for a partner and meet the partners emotional needs forming a strong husband/wife bond, or not, and both choose to decide better opportunities of life lie outside of marriage. Those are the choices.

Its easy to blame. Someone is abusive, Someone is unengaged. Where is the blame for not being able to spot the shortcomings of a partner a woman chooses to parent with? People might want to date a partners parents for a while because that is the biggest clue on how emotionally equipped they are to be a spouse.

For every abusive asshole dad that the state calls out for the 'fraud' of getting poor naive mom to spread her legs before she finds out he would be a horrible farther there are an equal or greater number of men who are basically enslaved by a biased system to uncommitted, unmotivated, anxiety prone women . The fact that it happens even once deems that this is a matter unfit for the state to handle in any capacity

The kids will loose out for simple fact that there is only one parent when before there were two. A mom could swallow her pride and acknowledge that perhaps she cant financially support the kids and let the former partner raise them.

However, if its important for her to be with the kids its important enough for her as a mom raising them to advocate and do what she needs to do to, get a job instead of home schooling (sorry opportunities like that are lost when the marriage ended), get public involvement to showcase how big a looser husband is, petition his bosses, perhaps get the former husband some needed therapy via some circumvented route if they are too insecure about themselves, get themselves some therapy, or finally, she could just convince another man that she is worthwhile enough to take in and support with her former husbands children in tow.

The children will suffer when a marriage ends. The biggest blow to these kids 'opportunity' in life is that they suffer emotionally, concepts of security and dependency are torn apart. No amount of court direction, financial pittance or mandatory counseling is going to help that.

Tough choices for sure, but really, the state has no place.