Parenting Police.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

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.

Some of the injustices of child support has changed over the years and I helped to change some of it, but my experience is not out dated. I am now assisting in two (2) child support related cases in the Court of Special Appeals in MD, and I have advised other cases, and so I do know of the injustices going on now under the unjust child support laws.

Originally Posted by This_person

The harshest of the laws are there for people like you.

I am glad that I got the harshest of treatments and I even spray painted the MD State House giving me harsher treatment then I would have gotten otherwise. I believe in the principle of "turning the other cheek" to make the evil bastards hit me again and that method works very effectively.

Originally Posted by This_person

I notice, though, that you don't address how absolutely WRONG you are about whether children are "prizes" or people!

Of course the children are people and calling them "prizes" is a way to emphasize that the children are not a burden as custodials pretend the children to be.

Originally Posted by This_person

That a parent is still a parent whether they live with their child or not.

I agree with that, but it is the law that forces the separated parents out of the picture as if the separated parents are only a child support payment and nothing else. You and the law keep blaming the separated parents but it is not true.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by MMDad

So you lied about quitting drinking. II_I

It is that I use to drink heavily till about 30, so I quit drinking for close to 20 years but I still drink a little socially. I see no lie to it.

Originally Posted by MMDad

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

No, I am a religious fanatic so I try never ever to lie - and try to always tell the truth, of course I reserve my right to remain silent on some occasssions.

Originally Posted by MMDad

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

I quit all drugs (mostly just pot) when I was 25 years old and I am 51 now.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

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.

What a revelation. I finally understand why it's supposed to be okay for a parent to desert their child[ren] without a care. It's another superb JPCism. "Custody" means that parent - and only that parent - is responsible. What a great way to drop all responsibility! "He's yours. Hmm, okay, I'm gone..."

Originally Posted by JPC sr

This other wrong way we have now just gives a legitimacy to divorce and to adultery and license to sin, and legalized stealing.

This part, however, still makes no sense whatsoever.

JPC, your reasoning gives more motivation for divorce and separation. Under your rules, a father who doesn't want to deal with the problems of supporting a wife and child[ren] can either get a divorce or compel the wife to file and then skip town free of charge. What could be better than that? Your 'experience' should pay off here, since this is what you did.

There is no "stealing" since the child is due the money from the beginning. If the parent would just do it there would be no force, no interjection by the BOSE. And any parent with a conscience should want to give said monies before they would ever let their child[ren] end up on the welfare list.

Originally Posted by This_person

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

That's where the "Cadillac" analogy fails. Children are not inanimate property. They need to be nurtured, protected and respected as equal individuals.

But I know I'm speaking to a cold-blooded loser, who minds only his own desires and feelings... so this will likely be conveniently overlooked.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by hvp05

This part, however, still makes no sense whatsoever.

JPC, your reasoning gives more motivation for divorce and separation. Under your rules, a father who doesn't want to deal with the problems of supporting a wife and child[ren] can either get a divorce or compel the wife to file and then skip town free of charge. What could be better than that? Your 'experience' should pay off here, since this is what you did.

I do have the answer,

the divorce or separation is not a victory for the one leaving.

The father (as hvp uses but it could be the mom too) when one parent leaves the union then they do not "win" they do not get away with anything.

To leave one's family, to loose one's spouse and child is not a "better" thing as hvp says.

The divorce or separation is a painful and sad event for all concerned.

It is wrong to think that one person breaking up their own God given union and the fruit of that union was some kind of "betterment" or victory, because it is not true in any case.

People do try to act and pretend that it is a "happy" event but it is all a fake, the divorces and separations are sad and painful for all concerned.

I know that I left my family and broke up my marriage and lost my son and it was a horrible event and I still have pain and missery from it to this day and the regrets will never ever go away.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I am glad that I got the harshest of treatments and I even spray painted the MD State House giving me harsher treatment then I would have gotten otherwise. I believe in the principle of "turning the other cheek" to make the evil bastards hit me again and that method works very effectively.

Do you realize that "turning the other cheek" does not include "damage public property"? It means, you just take it, and offer to be hit again. NOT being a criminal.

Of course the children are people and calling them "prizes" is a way to emphasize that the children are not a burden as custodials pretend the children to be.

Actually, there IS a financial burden. Not a complaint, not a problem, just an actual financial cost involved in raising a child. So, that you realize they are not a prize, that kind of negates your whole "custodial wins the prize" theory, and you'll now have to come up with a whole new excuse. What REALLY is the reason that the parent without primary physical placement is not required morally to provide for their child, then?

I agree with that, but it is the law that forces the separated parents out of the picture as if the separated parents are only a child support payment and nothing else. You and the law keep blaming the separated parents but it is not true.

So, you agree the parent is still the parent, the child is a human not a prize.... You're actually coming closer and closer to a reality based view of things, Jimmy! I'm proud of this progress you're making. Once you see that paying child support has nothing to do with visitation, or being involved in the child's life (more reality), then you'll be forced to admit that the law is not what separates parents from children, that it's parents CHOOSING to not be there for their child that separates those parent from their children.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Do you realize that "turning the other cheek" does not include "damage public property"? It means, you just take it, and offer to be hit again. NOT being a criminal.

Jesus was considered a criminal by those who hit his cheek. In my particular case then damaging public property by spray paint and giving the testimonial witness of "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" was a form of turning the other cheek.

The principle of cheek turning in civil disobediance is sound.

Originally Posted by This_person

What REALLY is the reason that the parent without primary physical placement is not required morally to provide for their child, then?

If you do not believe what I tell you as my own position then there is no more room for us to communicate.

There is NOT a really, really, really reason except the one that I already gave.

No hidden secret messages, that was all, so deal with it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

If you do not believe what I tell you as my own position then there is no more room for us to communicate.

It's not that I don't believe it, it's that it makes no sense to what you say in other things. You clearly think you have an idea, but you don't.

There is NOT a really, really, really reason except the one that I already gave. No hidden secret messages, that was all, so deal with it.

When asked why a non-custodial parent should not be morally obligated to help support that child, your answer was:

Originally Posted by Losing it

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.

Okay, Jimmy, so WHY does the marital status change whether a parent is responsible for their child? Your answer:

Originally Posted by Man not sure what he's talking about

It is because the custodial has the prize, the custodial has the best part,.......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.....

Okay, so you see the children as a prize, not a human. And, because you don't choose to be a part of that object's life on a daily basis, nor a provider for it's well being, you don't have to pay. I'm seeing your position. But wait, when you realize that's what you said, you say:

Of course the children are people and calling them "prizes" is a way to emphasize that the children are not a burden as custodials pretend the children to be.

So, you think the children are prizes, but not really prizes, that's just a way of saying they're not burdens. I agree, the child is not the burden. The costs of raising the child still exist, though. You do understand that, don't you?

So, now we are back to square one (again), with you not providing an answer. The children are not burdens, we agree on that. The children are people, not prizes, we agree on that. The parents are both still parents, we agree on that. The children still have needs, still need to eat, be clothed, housed,etc. I'm pretty sure I can trust that you'll agree with me on that. So, with all of this in mind (especially that both parents are still parents) - WHY is the parent not living with the child not morally responsible to provide for that child?

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

WHY is the parent not living with the child not morally responsible to provide for that child?

Because the children already have ALL of their needs and more already provided in full and overflowing.

The children have already eaten and full and the refrigerator and shelves are full so the child does not need more food. The children already have clothing a plenty with their closets full and overflowing so there is no need to give them more clothing. The children have housing with their own rooms and nice clean respectable place to live so there is no need to give more money for housing as they have it nicely already. The same is true for ALL other needs and much more then just needs. The children already have extras and luxuries and more so demanding that the separated parent pay a child support that pays for nothing supporting the child is a fraud and everybody knows it but the custodials mis-use the children as a weapon and the gov is hopelessly incompetant and it needs to be repaired.

I hope that helps to answer some.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

Because the children already have ALL of their needs and more already provided in full and overflowing.

Okay, okay, let's assume that the custodial parent is not wealthy. The children are in need. They can only afford to eat two meals a day instead of three. The custodial parent has to share a room with the child, and it's the living room 'cuz they live in an efficiency apartment in an unsafe area. They're wearing clothes too small, 'cuz they've grown two sizes in the last couple of months. Now, is the non-custodial parent morally obligated to help the child? Not the custodial parent, not forced by the government, just plain ol' moral obligation ("parental responsibility", if you will).....

Basically, what I'm trying to teach you is, it matters not whether the "needs" of the child are met. It's a parental responsibility REGARDLESS of whether the refrigerator is stocked.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

Okay, okay, let's assume that the custodial parent is not wealthy. The children are in need. They can only afford to eat two meals a day instead of three. The custodial parent has to share a room with the child, and it's the living room 'cuz they live in an efficiency apartment in an unsafe area. They're wearing clothes too small, 'cuz they've grown two sizes in the last couple of months. Now, is the non-custodial parent morally obligated to help the child? Not the custodial parent, not forced by the government, just plain ol' moral obligation ("parental responsibility", if you will).....

That is assuming some thing that is not true.

I certainly have been trying to point out that child support is based on lies and now you want me to assume the lies are true. Well no, I will not.

The poorest of the poor children anywhere in the USA are the families on welfare, and those families have so much food and clothing and housing that gets physically inspected to make certain the family and all the kids are well housed according to gov standards, so no, we are not going to pretent that the custodial and children are in desperate need to justify the dirty thievery of child support.

I suggest that we stick with the truth, lets stick with reality. In the poorest of poor families the gov takes the child support that gets paid by the separated parents and the gov keeps the c/s cash. The gov takes the child support cash from the poorest of the poor families because they already have all their needs overflowing. That is the reality.

Our laws lock parents into a cage and rob the parents of their livelihood and it is based on those same lying assumptions of immaginary families with immaginary hunger and immaginary needs. While child support enforcement is real live stealing and real live injustice and real live jails and slander.

Originally Posted by This_person

Basically, what I'm trying to teach you is, it matters not whether the "needs" of the child are met. It's a parental responsibility REGARDLESS of whether the refrigerator is stocked.

Well at least this takes us back to parenting police, because it is not your place nor the gov place to teach other parents as to how to raise their own children. You and the law are way out of line. Big daddy TP and big daddy gov can both go to hell.