Another Man Down in the War Against Fathers

FatherMag.com ^ | August 22, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

It costs either way...with CS or without. I'd much rather propose solutions than inane one-sided ventures that gain nothing.

It costs more with federal child suport enforcement. That's the whole story. There isn't two sides to it.

What you're saying sounds like you don't think there was child support before the fed got involved. We've had child support laws in the US since before it was the US. The colonies had child support laws, and the states have had them for more than 200 years. Nothing has happened since the fed got involved with its big $4 billion a year program that does anything to reduce poverty and welfare dependency.

[RogerFGay]

By not advocating for fathers or mothers. I focus on what's wrong with the family court system.

You've been advocating for run-away government corruption and spending.

[Brytani]

"Partly wrong and partly correct but with reasoning. Partly wrong in that any parent with a child in their care who fails to provide "needs" is guilty of neglect and there are laws...criminal laws...against neglect. Correct in that they aren't specified an amount. That reasoning being that since they are the custodial parent, the child being in their direct care, absent neglect, it is assumed that they are spending something on the child. With a non-custodial parent you cannot make such an assumption and they can't simply say pay something...so they set an amount."

The fact that there are neglect laws does nothing to diminish my original point. The fact still remains, a custodial parent can provide nothing financially to their child and it is perfect legal and in fact can and does cause an increase in the amount the non-custodial parent is order, upon penalty of jail, to pay. The various legal remedies available for prosecutors to go after non-custodial parents who do not pay do not apply to custodial parents. Last I checked, our constitution and law were supposed to apply to everyone, not just to 50% of the equation.

[Brytani]

You do realize that non-custodial parents are designated as visitors in their childs life, given visitation time without any proof or any findings of guilt that they have abused their child. It's standard custody agreements in all states.

How would you like to be told by a judge you are no longer a parent but a visitor?

[right2parent]

And what would be the Constitutional approach to custody determinations?

The constitution was created to protect natural rights. Natural rights don't change. Guardianship by nature is God's law. Government interference with this right, without an extremely persuasive justification is unconstitutional. This had been the standard by which a father's right was judged until the courts and legislatures found a way to ignore, and unlawfully infringe on this right.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

What you're saying sounds like you don't think there was child support before the fed got involved.

And what you're saying is that it existed so that all those single parents who weren't getting it were figments of ppl's imagination.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

You've been advocating for run-away government corruption and spending.

That state alone proves you don't have a clue what I stand for Rog. But then you were never too keen on listening to anyone who wasn't wholeheartedly agreeing with your every word.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

The fact that there are neglect laws does nothing to diminish my original point. The fact still remains, a custodial parent can provide nothing financially to their child and it is perfect legal and in fact can and does cause an increase in the amount the non-custodial parent is order, upon penalty of jail, to pay.

You didn't read my entire post. How can we have this discussion if you only pick and choose certain parts? I even added a piece so you would know that I don't hold with CPs who don't put anything toward their children, but you seem to have totally ignored it.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

You do realize that non-custodial parents are designated as visitors in their childs life...

Nope, don't realize any such thing. I realize that some NCPs are designated as visitors, etc. etc. etc. To state it any other way shows only one narrow-sided view of life.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

That state alone = That statement alone

[RogerFGay]

That state alone proves you don't have a clue what I stand for Rog. But then you were never too keen on listening to anyone who wasn't wholeheartedly agreeing with your every word.

You might have jumped into taking a position on a subject that you don't understand well enough to know what you're supporting. If you're not in favor of Big Brother government controlling all aspects of society and individual behavior, you've been doing a good job of fooling us into believing that you are.

[RogerFGay]

And what you're saying is that it existed so that all those single parents who weren't getting it were figments of ppl's imagination.

I never said anything even remotely close to that.

[Tired of Taxes]

So would you disrupt the continuity of care pattern that a child was used to if it meant primary-time custody to the father, in conflict with your presumption of maternal superiority?

If the mother were "criminally unfit" (including physically abusive) or adulterous, then my answer is: Absolutely! Just because a child was used to a particular pattern of care does not mean that it was the best.

As a side note: Even when parents remain married, patterns of care often change when circumstances change.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

You might have jumped into taking a position on a subject that you don't understand well enough to know what you're supporting.

Nope. I understand exactly what I support. I neither support the way the government handles it, nor the way you'd like to see it not handled at all. Does that tell you anything?

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

I never said anything even remotely close to that.

Beg to differ, but by stating that child support was around when no one was getting it means you either don't believe they didn't get it or you're lying about it having been around. So which one would it be?

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

I think we need to discuss this here RTL, rather than in the email box. Because I think it's very relevant to part of the point I've been addressing about father's rights advocates.

Do you recall this comment?

So you post to a group, MAFIA, which contends that fathers should have the same rights as Black slaves in 1802.

You referred to a site for mother's seeking child support from fathers who don't pay child support as a site which contends something it's never contended, and something that was meant as an insult.

Now tell me the double standard of why you emailed me this:

From Right To Life | 2002-09-02 09:14:26 new

" Do you perchance post to one of those mother hating FRGs?"...not only inaccurate, and a mischaracterization of most Father's Rights groups, but below the belt.

I note that it's only below the belt when it's from the opposition. Point made. I trust you have received it.

[Brytani]

At least my one-sided view is based on facts. The fact being that standard custody agreements in all states designate "visitation" time for NCP's. Another fact that shouldn't need to be made is that a person who visits is indeed a visitor.

[Brytani]

You and I look at this from two different positions. Mine is quite simple, any custodial parent who does not contribute financially to the care of their child is as much of a deadbeat parent as a ncp who pays nothing in child support AND they should face the exact same criminal and civil penalties that NCP's face. The only exception I can find to this is a person who through sickness or injury is unable to work and provide financially for their child, and then we would need to discuss if living with that parent full time is in the best interest of the child. Anything else IMO is an attempt to excuse non-responsibility for children.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

The fact that you're missing however is that not every visitor is such because of the state.

[almostheaven aka MrsDrumbo]

You and I look at this from two different positions. Mine is quite simple, any custodial parent who does not contribute financially to the care of their child is as much of a deadbeat parent as a ncp who pays nothing in child support AND they should face the exact same criminal and civil penalties that NCP's face.

Partly we do and partly no. I don't think that NCPs or CPs should be penalized just because they don't contribute. But that the circumstances should be addressed. If their non-contribution is just temporary and with very good reason, I'd rather help them get past the situation keeping them from being able to support than punish. If their non-support is because they simply don't try, don't care, or don't want to, I have no qualms about punishment.

That still does not make Roger's victimization of Morales ok, nor does it make child support itself an total evil in every circumstance it is applied...much like so many try to come across with. Lauding a guy who holds hostages and shoots at cops as your role model for a father's rights cause is not a hot idea. Never was, never will be. And it's why we're even posting to this thread.