Posted on 01/09/2006 12:19:01 AM PST by RWR8189
Well said.
It seems the problem is that in other cases of fraud, the timeclock starts from when one discovers that one has been defrauded - but here, it does not.
Is that the heart of the issue?
Yeah, but if we do not elect our leaders to handle the messy stuff what exactly are they good for then?
The following is a clip out of Mark Goldblatt's, AmerSpec, column today:
The textbook example of this, of course, is the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program enacted during the 1960s as part of the Johnson Administration's Great Society. The intention -- to provide a cash benefit to unwed mothers struggling to support their children -- was undeniably noble. The outcome, however, was the dramatic rise in out-of-wedlock births among African Americans, which soared from 26% in 1965 to its current level of 68%. Good intentions resulted in the greatest setback to black progress in America since slavery.
In most cases the mother refused to or could not name the "father". This was true for all ethnicities. The welfare benefits paid better than what the dad's would or could pay.
Nonetheless, the Clinton Administration in the 90s brought us the "DeadBeat Dad's Program". And the state dissomasters on what fathers should or would pay was increased. Bureacracies (paid for for by STATE and FED taxpayers) arose to specifically track down "deadbeat" dads. It was effective in some cases -- but the downside of language of the bill put a number of men in prison, whether rightly or wrongly. It garnished also, through the man's employer -- his wages, and put his name on a federal ROSTER (in a "criminal" capacity)-- effectively dinging his ability to obtain or maintain credible employment. If he could not pay those bills, he was placed in jail.
If a father cannot work to pay his "child support bills", and the state throws him in jail, what good is this to the child? Or the state taxpayers?
Furthermore, the state dissomasters took into their accounts -- CREDIT CARD OFFERS. Meaning, if a credit card offered a dad a credit card(s) in the amount of $10,000 credit limit -- this was added to his "income" upon which the state based the child support monthly payments, in their thinking that he had the "potential" to pay that high an amount. In consequence, a number of dads who couldn't pay those amounts..were placed in jail and most certainly in criminal "light". Who does this help? And when the dad paid for lawyers to defend him, get him out of jail (at his own cost, whereas the states provide "pro-bono" lawyer services (paid for by the taxpayer) for the mother), his "debts" remain on his credit record.
So, no. I don't think there are easy answers to this matter.
What is known, from data, is that where joint custody is established, the money and support tends to work out far, far better. The problems then usually arise during the "mother as primary custody" cases.
I read some studies in the mid-80s in re poverty single-moms. The dads would usually stay in the picture, but disappear as the social worker arrived; but because Welfare paid more to a family than any amount the bio dad could muster. It paid sufficiently that mom, dad, and children could reside, albeit, not neatly better than if dad were working and financially supporting his family; and yes, some men simply do not have the skills necessary for gainful employment. Many of the "social benefit" laws simply would not and did not include "men".
As far as biased law you are correct with the stereotype. But if you look at most stereotypes there is a grain of truth to some of the traits. True, a stereotype paints with a broad brush but.... child supports as it is now is basically a way for a woman to be able to get a divorce easily.
I recall the last, most recent stat, down from earlier figures, shows women filing for divorce in 70% of all divorce cases.
Without child support a vast amount of women would not be able to support themselves nor their children with a one parent family.
Yes, but now they have Big Government as their children's daddies.
I'm not talking about "deadbeats". I'm talking about your average dad who didn't want to divorce but the wife did, and under No-Fault, she could do whatever she damned well pleased.
I've seen this through children's eyes. There's a backlash against "mommy" coming, I predict this, very squarely.
In the mid-90s, in debates, I proffered my opinion that when a couple divorces (sans domestic violence, etc.) the couple should maintain the family home and an apartment. Instead of the children being shuffled between mom's and dad's places of residences, I think the parents should do the shuffling; leaving the children in one stable home location. Good idea in theory; but I dread the government getting involved in this one.
Neither child support nor custody should be biased towards women. Men are just as capable of raising their offspring as women. As far as boys are concerned much more capable.
I perfectly agree with you.
I think back to the mid-60s. Ocassionally there'd be a sprinkle on a dad leaving his family. Then feminism. Suddenly more and more women were leaving their families -- excuse me, rather taking their families and sticking dad in the corner. No-fault Divorce and Feminist Sloganeering brought this about. When something like a "yell" is considered as "domestic violence" in feminist circles, and then used to support the passage of "No Fault Divorce", chaos, persecution, and pain and suffering definitely will follow.
I think people really need to awaken to the karma they are visiting upon the next generation, and through and by simply being selfish. Or rushing to be the next "headline" name. Politicians can't solve this. It takes everyone awakening from the slumber and dis-ease of the 60s and 70s.
When they awaken, when they begin being courageous in honor, truth, and integrity -- then we'll get, overall, better politicians.
I think the awakening is happening. And this is good.
In the 90s, I was often censored for writing on boards - certainly hate mailed privately and publically -- for exactly what I've written here in FR.
Reminds me of Doris Duke the tobacco heiress, who adopted an adult hanger-on as her daughter. The lawyers warned her that the action was irreversible, but Doris went ahead with the adoption anyway. Within a few years, she and the adopted daughter had a falling-out, and altho' Doris banished the woman from her home, the daughter still collected a hefty amount from Doris' will.
I'm not certain where to begin with this process of passing less biased/more family friendly laws as those biased "family courts laws" have roots in the pub ed institutes, the legal educational mills, adoption, foster care, unions, etc.
But yes, I do agree with you, positive, more sound changes have to begin. I've no doubts they are changing towards the fairer stretch, but it is happening incrementally. And obviously, never soon enough for those suffering under such biased laws.
It's still so stunning for me that courts would award custody of children to "females" who are guilty of breaking the marriage on such grounds as her adultery, or her child abuse, or her drug/alcohol habits.
In the majority of households across the USA, the husband is "head of household" - primarily due to his constancy of primary breadwinner. In our current laws, the "head of household" is usually the one most punished by feminist laws. Just as such natural disasters as Katrina would be blamed on President Bush.
And yours on your own situation. Yes, you are quite right about the double standard.
I did have a friend some time back, female, who was immediately hit for not paying child support. Her story was more of the exception. However, it is strongly suspected that her "ex" got immediate action and because his male new love was in the DA's office.
Furthermore, so much of our American laws on "Family" have found their ways into UN seminal belief sets and policy. The ugly that we are speaking of has octopus-like tentacles in many places -- in which -- they do not belong.
Thanks! Those two sites will provide endless hours of entertainment for me.
True.
In the early 1800s, the father would have been guaranteed custody of his children, and of any legally presumed to be his, so it was rational for him to be financially responsible since he would be raising the kids. The first move of feminism was to switch the age-old presumption of paternal custody around 180 degrees, leaving dads obligated to pay for the raising of daughters and sons they don't have custody of. That's the problem. And where the problem is, there the solution is apparent: the custody rights of fathers need to be restored right away.
There is no matrimony if the female steps out of the relationship.
"The kid shouldn't be made to suffer because of the sins of it's parent."
Correct, the actual father needs to be located and pay child support, not the husband who is the double-victim here.
Correct.
Any man who does not go get a DNA test of his kids during a divorce process (all it takes is a cotton swab) is an idiot.
Several here have stated that "this is ok", that the man has to keep paying.
"it is in the best interests of the child"
"he should do it without a court order"
"it takes a village to raise a child",
and so on.........
SO-- would you also be ok with Sir Maddam Hillary's (and other womens) idea,of universal child support,where ALL men are forced to pay child support,into a federal pool, even if thay had NEVER been with ANY woman, in their lives??
After all, it takes a village, you know....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.