Solution for c/s.

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

By the way, did you understand how your thinking was flawed as corrected here and here? You never commented or tried to correct my thinking, so I'm assuming you now understand that your philosophy is fatally flawed.

I understand your words and I do not like them at all.

I see your postings as beligerant and no real way for me to reply to such comments so I leave it like that.

You can believe whatever you want, as I go on about my business.

 

[This_person]

I understand your words and I do not like them at all.

I see your postings as beligerant and no real way for me to reply to such comments so I leave it like that.

You can believe whatever you want, as I go on about my business.

Not liking them is not really the point. I don't like it when I'm proven wrong, either. I have a hard time fighting when I'm proven wrong, too.

It would be nice, maybe even manly, of you to admit you're wrong.

You would gain great face.

 

[MMDad]

I do not know anything about this claim. Plus, even if I did it would not be my place to speak for my son. And he did go to c/s Court yesterday Monday and it went fine.

This is your definition of "it went fine?":

Defendant present for preliminary inquiry. Defendant advised of his rights and referred to the Public Defender's Office. Contempt Hearing scheduled for 9-24-07 @ 8:30 AM. Defendant ordered to appear. Referral filed.

He isn't paying child support, he's facing a contempt hearing, he's spending his money drinking and playing poker, and it's fine?

You are one sick SOB, Jimmy!

 

[Sharon]

He isn't paying child support, he's facing a contempt hearing, he's spending his money drinking and playing poker, and it's fine?

You know...

All the children are fine and have all their needs met.

 

[RoseRed]

You know...

All the children are fine and have all their needs met.

Well dur, everyone knows that...

 

[hvp05]

I see your postings as beligerant

Just like old times.

 

[Pushrod]

:
I said, and still say, that since my son already had all those things in abundance then I did not send him any more, thus the answer is no.

Wait a minute here! You say your son had all the stuff he needed in abundance, did you supply him with this abundance or was your ex the one who had to dig deeper in her pockets to supply him? He had an abundance of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, how much of this did you supply? Any?
If you didn't you are one big POS!

 

[This_person]

I understand your words and I do not like them at all.

I see your postings as beligerant and no real way for me to reply to such comments so I leave it like that.

You can believe whatever you want, as I go on about my business.

I've seen you on a bunch since you last posted this, yet you seem unable to come up with any response to my questions. Where are my facts wrong, Jimmy? Where's the beligerance?

You have "no real way to reply" because you're wrong. Just own up to it. Or, does truth always shut you up?








Many people have asked for your response to a lot of things, why are you avoiding this thread that YOU started?

 

[This_person]

This is your definition of "it went fine?":

He isn't paying child support, he's facing a contempt hearing, he's spending his money drinking and playing poker, and it's fine?

You are one sick SOB, Jimmy!

It must be a proud moment for them, as they describe how they're wasting the life they've created (their own children) until, of course, one realizes he IS one of those children.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Wait a minute here! You say your son had all the stuff he needed in abundance, did you supply him with this abundance or was your ex the one who had to dig deeper in her pockets to supply him? He had an abundance of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, how much of this did you supply? Any?
If you didn't you are one big POS!

Well I think that is a very foolish opinion,

when a child has plenty of food, housing, clothes, everything in abundance,

then for the parent to give the child(ren) more of it would be wrong,

and to have gov forced laws that order parents to provide unneeded extras and useless luxuries is reprehensible.

If we let the parents provide all the child needs then the children will have all that the child needs.

It is a simple solution, get the parenting police out of the business and let the parents do their own parenting.

The child is reported to have everything the child needs and this poster calls the parent a "POS" and the children are completely fine.

Having such ignorant beliefs is one thing but turning it into unjust child support laws was an abuse of government.

 

[This_person]

Well I think that is a very foolish opinion,

when a child has plenty of food, housing, clothes, everything in abundance,

then for the parent to give the child(ren) more of it would be wrong,

and to have gov forced laws that order parents to provide unneeded extras and useless luxuries is reprehensible.

If we let the parents provide all the child needs then the children will have all that the child needs.

It is a simple solution, get the parenting police out of the business and let the parents do their own parenting.

The child is reported to have everything the child needs and this poster calls the parent a "POS" and the children are completely fine.

Having such ignorant beliefs is one thing but turning it into unjust child support laws was an abuse of government.

Did you read my response to your car/gas analogy that explains why your post here completely wrong in concept?

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Did you read my response to your car/gas analogy that explains why your post here completely wrong in concept?

I realize what it is now,

child support is not just stealing the money,

it is a way for the custodials to steal the children.

The gov and the Courts do the dirty work while the custodials steal the children and claim a cash prize at the same time.

It is like extortion or blackmail where the separated parents must pay the cash or never see their children again.

It is even more like kid-napping where the ransom money must be paid.

So child support is not just stealing the money - it steals the children.

 

[hvp05]

It is like extortion or blackmail where the separated parents must pay the cash or never see their children again.

That's not really a concern for parents like you whom never wanted to see their children again.

 

[This_person]

I realize what it is now,

child support is not just stealing the money,

it is a way for the custodials to steal the children.

The gov and the Courts do the dirty work while the custodials steal the children and claim a cash prize at the same time.

It is like extortion or blackmail where the separated parents must pay the cash or never see their children again.

It is even more like kid-napping where the ransom money must be paid.

So child support is not just stealing the money - it steals the children.

I'll grant you that child support is just as much about stealing money as it is stealing kids. 0 = 0

Do you know that every judge I've ever seen who heard a custodial parent equate visitation time with child support arrearages has gotten totally reamed by that judge? Every time! The court system seems to despise even putting the two issues together at the same time, unless there's a darned good reason to do so - and they're hard pressed to think there are many good reasons to do so.

By the way, you didn't answer my questions;
Where is my thinking flawed in what I explained about how child support issues are everyone's issues? Or, about how it's both parent's responsibility to pay their fair share so they're not saddling the other parent? Or about how kids need protected from parents that seemigly disown them when they leave the house? You spout more and more and more wrong things, yet you still can't handle just answering the things I've said earlier. Admit your wrong, it will save you great face!

 

[Pushrod]

Well I think that is a very foolish opinion,

when a child has plenty of food, housing, clothes, everything in abundance,

then for the parent to give the child(ren) more of it would be wrong,

and to have gov forced laws that order parents to provide unneeded extras and useless luxuries is reprehensible.

If we let the parents provide all the child needs then the children will have all that the child needs.

It is a simple solution, get the parenting police out of the business and let the parents do their own parenting.

The child is reported to have everything the child needs and this poster calls the parent a "POS" and the children are completely fine.

Having such ignorant beliefs is one thing but turning it into unjust child support laws was an abuse of government.

Boy, you totally missed the mark on this post. I asked if your ex was the one who supplied all to your son and you totally walked around that question.
So it is okay for one parent to have to supply all the support for the child without any input from the other parent? How is that fair? Is it fair if the custodial parent is JUST making ends meet (or maybe not even that) by providing 100% for the child while the other parent is out galavanting around with extra pocket money?

Yes, it would be nice if the government could keep their nose out of the child support business, but who is going to make those parents that wont contribute anything to the raising of THEIR child anty up?

 

[This_person]

Boy, you totally missed the mark on this post. I asked if your ex was the one who supplied all to your son and you totally walked around that question.
So it is okay for one parent to have to supply all the support for the child without any input from the other parent? How is that fair? Is it fair if the custodial parent is JUST making ends meet (or maybe not even that) by providing 100% for the child while the other parent is out galavanting around with extra pocket money?

Yes, it would be nice if the government could keep their nose out of the child support business, but who is going to make those parents that wont contribute anything to the raising of THEIR child anty up?

He answers this with an attack on custodial parents. He says that if the custodial parent doesn't like it, they should give up their kid(s) to the non-custodial parent. He has never once addressed the concepts of "fair", or "equal responsibility" directly. Then he'll tell you that the government shouldn't be in the "parent police" business - blah blah blah.

He avoids directly answering any questions that prove him wrong, he just goes off on meaningless tangents and attacks.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Do you know that every judge I've ever seen who heard a custodial parent equate visitation time with child support arrearages has gotten totally reamed by that judge? Every time! The court system seems to despise even putting the two issues together at the same time, unless there's a darned good reason to do so - and they're hard pressed to think there are many good reasons to do so.

That is what I said.

The law mis-uses the child support as the way to steal the children from the separated parents.

Then the separated parent is to pay the ransom money or never see the children again.

The child support is a weapon to steal the children.

The children are all fine, claiming hungry or needy children is all a lie.

But the lie is needed to unjustly demand c/s and to steal the kids.

 

[JPC sr]

Scofflaw and Personal Responsibility.

Boy, you totally missed the mark on this post. I asked if your ex was the one who supplied all to your son and you totally walked around that question.
So it is okay for one parent to have to supply all the support for the child without any input from the other parent? How is that fair? Is it fair if the custodial parent is JUST making ends meet (or maybe not even that) by providing 100% for the child while the other parent is out galavanting around with extra pocket money?

Yes, it would be nice if the government could keep their nose out of the child support business, but who is going to make those parents that wont contribute anything to the raising of THEIR child anty up?

We can not make laws based on some abstract deffinition of "fairness" like you are claiming.

The children do already have all their needs filled to overflowing and yet we have deadbroke parents in jail by the hundred thousands in order to collect money that the parents do not have in order to pay children that are not in need.

That is not "fair" as that is injustice. Based on slander and lies.

What the children really need is full access and visitation with their separated parents.

The child support laws divide the children from their God given other parent.

You are not talking about "fairness" for the children.

 

[This_person]

That is what I said.

How? Explain how my saying they are two entirely separate issues is what you said when you say they're tied together.

The law mis-uses the child support as the way to steal the children from the separated parents.

In what way does the child support steal a child from the non-custodial parent? Do you think you're not allowed to be with your child if you provide support?

Then the separated parent is to pay the ransom money or never see the children again.

Can you show me a legal reference to this rampant, unfounded paranoia? Pay, don't pay, it's got nothing to do with visitation.

The children are all fine, claiming hungry or needy children is all a lie. But the lie is needed to unjustly demand c/s and to steal the kids.

Okay, so let's take the factual, actually existing hungry or underfed, under housed, under clothed, under provided for children and pretend they don't exist, as you falsely claim. Now, answer PushRod, or me, or any of a dozen other posters that have asked you - If you both are responsible for the upbringing of the child, why does the entire financial cost of raising a child fall to the custodial parent. Why is the non-custodial parent not morally responsible for providing material conditions for their child? You've said it. Now, either back it up or take it back as one of your many obviously wrong statements.

 

[maxima87]

A lot of parents make this complaint that the child support is not being used for the children and I think the only solution would be to allow the separated parents to spend any and all of the "child support" directly onto the children.

Do not give the child support to the custodial because the custodial spends the money on whatever the custodial wants,

so then the separated parents can give child support to the child. I like this idea.

It would be equivolent to joint custody because both parents would be providing directly to the child(ren) and the c/s would stop being custodial support.

And this way the custodial would not have to account for anything since they would not touch the money.

This is a real solution for reforming the unjust child support system.

This has got to be one of the stupidest things that I have ever read. I had to respond before I could even read the rest of the posts--this one just stuck out as super stupid!! So, based upon this post you think that the non-custodial parent should be Disney Dad--and just buy the children all the fun junk that they want--and the custodial parent should be the one to provide all of the neccessities for the child--a place to live, food to eat, heating, extra-curricular activities. Do you even think about what point you want to make before you post--because you sound stupid. JMO