Parenting Police.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by tirdun

Against my better judgment, here's one last shot:

Please tell me, JPC where this chain of logic fails.

1. Two people have a child and both provide, in some way, for that child
2. One person, lets say the Father, leaves the relationship for whatever reason
3. The child and mother are now without the Father's financial support
4. Society has determined that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship
5. The father, however, refuses to pay any support.
6. The state, in the interests of the child, as determined by society, orders the father to pay support.
7. During the lapse, the state pays in lieu of the father.
8. The father refuses to pay
9. Having exhausted other options, the state takes money from the Father's paycheck in order to fulfill the responsibility AND repay the state for its support in the lapse.
10. The father takes further steps to avoid payment, breaking the law in the process
11. The state arrests the father for breaking the law

Now maybe we are all misunderstanding you, but I see no failure in this logical process. You seem to be saying either that #4 is wrong (someone leaving a relationship is no longer responsible for children from that relationship) or #6 is wrong (the father cannot be legally ordered to fulfill this responsibility).

I'd love to see a real clarification of your position.

I simply agree with you completely. You have it clarified already.

And yes #4 and #6 are wrong and those make all the others as unjust and abusive against the separated parents.

In that case the father is forced into crime by not paying and then unjustly put into jail.

So here you see the problem and you know the equation but for some reason you will not make the decision yourself and testify that the child support laws are evil. That irritates me but I do understand. It takes faith to walk the walk.

So I will lead the way, and child support will fall, and I expect a lot will fall with it.

[hvp05 (Premo)]

... back to square 1.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I simply agree with you completely. You have it clarified already.

And yes #4 and #6 are wrong and those make all the others as unjust and abusive against the separated parents.

In that case the father is forced into crime by not paying and then unjustly put into jail.

So here you see the problem and you know the equation but for some reason you will not make the decision yourself and testify that the child support laws are evil. That irritates me but I do understand. It takes faith to walk the walk.

So I will lead the way, and child support will fall, and I expect a lot will fall with it.

So, why, in your "view", is the separated parent no longer responsible for their own flesh and blood? You're saying it's wrong to believe that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship. Why should a parent be relieved of their responsibility?

[hvp05 (Premo)]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I simply agree with you completely. You have it clarified already.

So, then, you also agree that there is no failure in that logical process.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

In that case the father is forced into crime by not paying and then unjustly put into jail.

You were forced into crime about as much as you were forced to leave town, or forced to have a kid in the first place.

Under this idea, no poor person should be convicted of any crime... because obviously unjust society and the evil government forced them to do it.

Originally Posted by JPC sr

It takes faith to walk the walk.

Your faith is a twisted, unrecognizable version of the faith you claim to follow... you believe only in yourself. Fortunately, you're the only member of your religion.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

So, why, in your "view", is the separated parent no longer responsible for their own flesh and blood? You're saying it's wrong to believe that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship. Why should a parent be relieved of their responsibility?

I like people / parents being responsidle for their own children, it is the unjust child support system that I object too.

I believe that all people and the involved parents have a greater responsibilty to resist and defy the unjust child support laws because they are evil.

But that has nothing to do with the children as the children are all fine.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I like people / parents being responsidle for their own children, it is the unjust child support system that I object too.

I believe that all people and the involved parents have a greater responsibilty to resist and defy the unjust child support laws because they are evil.

But that has nothing to do with the children as the children are all fine.

So, let's see here. The quote was:

Originally Posted by tirdrun

4. Society has determined that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship.....
You seem to be saying either that #4 is wrong...

To which you responded:

Originally Posted by Circular Logic Man

I simply agree with you completely. you have it clarified already. And yes #4 and #6 are wrong

So, I asked you why #4 is wrong, why is it wrong of society to have determined that a parent is not relieved of responsibility to a child by leaving the relationship. Are you following me? I'm asking you why you disagree with a parent being responsible for their child, because that's what you said. Your answer?

Originally Posted by JPC sr

I like people / parents being responsidle for their own children...

Parent's aren't responsible, but they're responsible. Conflicting thoughts. Please tell us what the REAL position you have is.

[JPC sr]

Originally Posted by This_person

I'm asking you why you disagree with a parent being responsible for their child, because that's what you said. Your answer?

Parent's aren't responsible, but they're responsible. Conflicting thoughts. Please tell us what the REAL position you have is.

People / parents are responsible to ourselves and to God first and foremost, and any responsibility to others or to the gov comes secondary and subordinate to the first and the foremost.

Thus parents take care (responsible) for our own kids in the way we see fitting and not by the dictates of other. The only exception is when their is physical abuse and violence of some kind and then society must intervene.

So the responsibily to the unjust family break up laws of child support is that we must resist them, fight them, defy the unjust and destructive child support laws.

So taking care of our kids is fine but cooperating with the child support is wrong.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by JPC sr

People / parents are responsible to ourselves and to God first and foremost, and any responsibility to others or to the gov comes secondary and subordinate to the first and the foremost.

Thus parents take care (responsible) for our own kids in the way we see fitting and not by the dictates of other. The only exception is when their is physical abuse and violence of some kind and then society must intervene.

So, basically you're saying that parents should not be held responsible to the standards of society with respect to providing for their children, but should be held responsible to the standards of society with respect to abuse. What type of abuse do you consider it to be when a non-custodial parent provides virtually no support directly to their child - especially when they are physically fit enough to work but choose not to provide financially for their child?

[pixiegirl (Premo)]

JPC, you've said over and over that child support is "stealing from the poor to give to the rich." How do you figure that this is always the case. I left my ex husband when I was 22 and making $36K a year. This is FAR from rich. He has never offered any financial support in helping to raise his son. Should he not be held accountable?

[Chasey_Lane]

Originally Posted by pixiegirl

JPC, you've said over and over that child support is "stealing from the poor to give to the rich." How do you figure that this is always the case. I left my ex husband when I was 22 and making $36K a year. This is FAR from rich. He has never offered any financial support in helping to raise his son. Should he not be held accountable?

Geeze, pix...you were also collecting money from 4 other baby's daddy's at $600 a pop. All that money was for "extras" and your chitlins never saw a penny.