Parenting Police.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I never said it does. You are just taking us back to twisting again. I choose my words carefully.

I said that custody make a determination as to who provides for the child. If the parents get married and stay married then they both have custody. When the child(ren) are taken by one parent then they take the custody to provide onto themselves.

Okay, read carefully. I'll type slowly so you can get the full effect of the quesiton What is the reason that the parent living with the child is the only one responsible for that child's well being? Why doesn't the parent NOT living with the child bear legal, moral, ethical responsibility for the child? I know you've said you like them to, blah blah blah. You've said it is not the moral obligation of the separated parent, and here you're again saying basically the same thing. Why is it not that parent's obligation, responsibility, etc., to provide for that child? Why should the parent with physical placement have all of that placed on them? Regardless of marital status?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by pixiegirl

JPC, forgive me if this has been asked and answered elsewhere before and I missed it. BUT why did your marriage disolve and who made the request that the marriage be ended?

It is fine to ask me over again as I like to answer question even though my answers are not always sufficient.

The marriage disolved because of me and I blew it all big time. And the separation which forced her to get the divorce was all my own doing too, and I thought it was the right thing to do at the time.

Now I am not here trying to repair my past though I have repaired much of my own wrong doings in other ways.

I want to reform the unjust child support in help to other families that are being damaged now by those unjust laws.

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by This_person

WHY is it not up to BOTH parents? The child is both parents' child, why should the care not be up to both parents?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is because they got a divorce or separation and that is why it is not up to both. They must stay together like married and then it is both.

Originally Posted by This_person

What does the status of the marriage have to do with the status of being a parent?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I never said it does.

Jimmy, you should sober up and actually read what you post. It reveals just how stupid you are.


Here's a little friendly advice for you, Jimmy: Step away from the crack pipe.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by MMDad

Jimmy, you should sober up and actually read what you post. It reveals just how stupid you are.


Here's a little friendly advice for you, Jimmy: Step away from the crack pipe.

You post that foolish stuff but if there was any truth to it then you could snitch like a little rat fink and tell the police on me about the drugs and I would get put into jail - but no.

Then I could not run for election, then I could not be the next Congressman from 5th District - but no.

I rock and roll.

And I do some times drink and I like dark liquor from Canada, but I do not drink very much. I stopped drinking the booze back some 21 years ago but I still drink a little now on social occassions.

But if you think the drugs are true then do your duty and rat me out.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

You post that foolish stuff but if there was any truth to it then you could snitch like a little rat fink and tell the police on me about the drugs and I would get put into jail - but no.

Then I could not run for election, then I could not be the next Congressman from 5th District - but no.

I rock and roll.

And I do some times drink and I like dark liquor from Canada, but I do not drink very much. I stopped drinking the booze back some 21 years ago but I still drink a little now on social occassions.

But if you think the drugs are true then do your duty and rat me out.

Okay, read carefully. I'll type slowly so you can get the full effect of the quesiton What is the reason that the parent living with the child is the only one responsible for that child's well being? Why doesn't the parent NOT living with the child bear legal, moral, ethical responsibility for the child? I know you've said you like them to, blah blah blah. You've said it is not the moral obligation of the separated parent, and here you're again saying basically the same thing. Why is it not that parent's obligation, responsibility, etc., to provide for that child? Why should the parent with physical placement have all of that placed on them? Regardless of marital status?

[MMDad (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

And I do some times drink and I like dark liquor from Canada

So you lied about quitting drinking. II_I

You lie about a lot of stuff, don't you?

You claimed before that you quit using drugs. When did you quit?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

What is the reason that the parent living with the child is the only one responsible for that child's well being? Why doesn't the parent NOT living with the child bear legal, moral, ethical responsibility for the child?

Why is it not that parent's obligation, responsibility, etc., to provide for that child? Why should the parent with physical placement have all of that placed on them? Regardless of marital status?

It is because the custodial has the prize, the custodial has the best part, it is like me giving you a brand new Cadilac car and the person crying that they want money for gas and oil because a Cadilac costs so much money to drive. So if you do not want to feed and house the kids or the Cadilac then give them to me and shut the hell up.

You and other custodials talk like you got stuck with the burden of the children instead of having the best part - the custodial has the prize by having the children. If you want the separated parent to pay for the kids then give them the kids and let them pay. If you give me a new car then I will not ask you to give me a monthly allowance for gas and insurance. I will take the car and the kids and you can go to hell. No cost to you, no obligation, give me the prize and you are free to go.

The custodials are holding the children as hostages like kidnapping saying the separated parents must pay the ransom money in child support or else they never see their God given kids again.

It is not just dishonest but it is immoral and indecent.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It is because the custodial has the prize, the custodial has the best part, it is like me giving you a brand new Cadilac car and the person crying that they want money for gas and oil because a Cadilac costs so much money to drive. So if you do not want to feed and house the kids or the Cadilac then give them to me and shut the hell up.

You and other custodials talk like you got stuck with the burden of the children instead of having the best part - the custodial has the prize by having the children. If you want the separated parent to pay for the kids then give them the kids and let them pay. If you give me a new car then I will not ask you to give me a monthly allowance for gas and insurance. I will take the car and the kids and you can go to hell. No cost to you, no obligation, give me the prize and you are free to go.

The custodials are holding the children as hostages like kidnapping saying the separated parents must pay the ransom money in child support or else they never see their God given kids again.

It is not just dishonest but it is immoral and indecent.

First and foremost, I'm not speaking from the point of view of the parent with primary physical placement, I'm speaking from the point of view of the child of a divorce. See, I wasn't a prize, a Cadillac. I am a human being, needing two parents to raise me best. (For you parents who are widow(er)s, that's not what I'm talking about) When a parent splits with their spouse, they don't give up their parental responsibilities. This is from the point of view of the offspring, mind you. We want both parents involved in our lives, even if the other parent is a piece of crap. If you didn't look at your child as an object, but as a person with feelings and needs (other than government cheese), you might begin to have a clue what I'm talking about (but, alas, I don't hold much hope for you anymore). Parenting isn't something you can turn on and off at will. You're the parent, even when you're crap. You are still responsible to the child. Yep, it's no longer discussion-worthy, it's just a plain fact. Your opinion, my opinion - they don't matter. It's a hard fact. So, you can't just drop off the kids with the "prize winner", you have to still be a father.

Second, it doesn't work like ransom. Now, I'm speaking from both points of view - primary placement Dad, and son of divorced parents. See, my mother never paid a nickel, my dad never asked for a nickel, and never once said a word about the fact she didn't. As a matter of fact, he told me in my twenties that had she offered (she didn't, she was a piece of crap like you), he wouldn't have taken it because he was a man. I disagreed with his reasoning, but intelligent people have that perogative. Anyway, he also never once stopped her from visiting. SHE wouldn't come, but he never stopped her. Verified by both parents. I've never stopped my children's mother from visiting my children. SHE's not come, but never because I've stopped her. The law doesn't work that you have to be paid in child support for visitation, and if it did (it doesn't), morally that would be wrong anyway. Because (read above), the non-supporting parent is STILL A PARENT. It would be wrong of a parent to deny access to the other parent based upon money. Maybe your ex-wife was as vindictive as you were, I don't know. Maybe you've heard of bad people. Either way, that's not the law. So, you fool, government is not only NOT doing what you say, the law AGREES with you that both parents (who are not abusive) should have unfettered access to their children (in most cases).

This is why I ask you why you can be so sure about your opinion, when you are so FACTUALLY WRONG. You know nothing of which you speak except your own little guilt and hatred and indignation at the wrongs done to you and by you.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, you fool, government is not only NOT doing what you say, the law AGREES with you that both parents (who are not abusive) should have unfettered access to their children (in most cases).

This is why I ask you why you can be so sure about your opinion, when you are so FACTUALLY WRONG. You know nothing of which you speak except your own little guilt and hatred and indignation at the wrongs done to you and by you.

The law is hypocritical in that it says it is helping children and helping families but it does neither.

So yes, I know what the crap says, and perhaps you are correct that my own experiences make so I do know matter a fact that the child support system is evil and it needs to be abolished.

But reform will do for now.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

The law is hypocritical in that it says it is helping children and helping families but it does neither.

So yes, I know what the crap says, and perhaps you are correct that my own experiences make so I do know matter a fact that the child support system is evil and it needs to be abolished.

But reform will do for now.

Your experiences are, let's just be nice and say, YEARS old. Nothing like what the system is now! There's no hypocracy (overall from the practical sense). Your experiences are (1)being a piece of crap that didn't support your kid, (2)deserting your family, (3)being held accountable for your dispicable acts. The harshest of the laws are there for people like you.

I notice, though, that you don't address how absolutely WRONG you are about whether children are "prizes" or people! That a parent is still a parent whether they live with their child or not.