So Tired "debate"

[sparrowmom]

 I am not sure why my post became some twisted debate over "stupid shit"

 The only thing I can think to say is this....

Love your Child More Than You Hate The Other Parent..

If You Can Read This..... Do yourself and your Child a Favor...

Let your child Grow and allow them to Thrive!



Just because A Woman might have POPPED Them Out Of Her *****.

Or A Man may have provided some *****




Do You Really Think This Creates Ownership??


I could care less what anyone that seeks out
"ownership"
thinks....

Regardless of how A child was concieved,  
No person should claim "Ownership"

Disregard my last post and consider this if you can..

As a PARENT, I have only 1 Job.
To raise the child I was blessed with.
And ensure that they become a Productive And Respected ADULT.  

You Know What???  
This Can't be DONE  unless someone STOPS
 thinking about themself...  
 (Or something like that)


If anyone has taken the time to read this far.......

Go into your childs room, make sure that the blanket is covering them the way they like it...

If you are unable to do this,
Do you know what to do when your child is with you??  

If Not...   It is not the (***** Parent) fault....
It is not bacause the ***** refused to allow your time.

It Might be....  That you forgot to look...

These things Happen....  
When You are Too Busy  Thinking About
YOU!

Like I said,
LOVE your child more than you HATE
 the OP

It is easier to do that you think!

If you are unable to do this.....  

Please don't blame the Court...  

Did They did follow you home begging you to provide an opinion about your situation??!!

 (If a Judge did, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME PICTURES!!!)

 Because we all know that you should have some!!!    
 Or at least some "Vocal Proof"

NO STOP!!!  I Can't stop the Giggles!!!
The Image of a JUDGE running down the road, robe about to trip  legs due to the crazy pace....  





 

[sparrowmom]

Hello,
I just became aware that my profile states that I am M.

I assume I clicked the wrong area..

I apologize for the misinformation..

I assure All, I am of the Female Gender.

[mistoffolees]

>LOVE your child more than you HATE
> the OP
>
>It is easier to do that you think!
>
>If you are unable to do this.....  
>
>Please don't blame the Court...  

Well said. Many of the people here are blaming the system for parents who are putting their own needs first. You even see it from some regular posters here (and at least one admin) who is so worried about making the other parent look bad that they're refusing to do what's right - and then blaming the system.

[Kitty C.]

That's a LOT of generalizing.

Do you want to start this up again, Mist???  I'm sure no one else does.  But to 'quote' you, don't put words into our mouths.  'You even see it from some regular posters here (and at least one admin) who is so worried about making the other parent look bad that they're refusing to do what's right - and then blaming the system.'  That may be how you 'interpreted' it, but thru that entire thread, I never saw a regular poster ONCE saying they refuse to do what's right for their child.  Their (and my) beef is desperately wanting to do what is right by the child, but the courts so often refuse to let them!

GET IT RIGHT OR DON'T SAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[MixedBag]

Mist, you haven't got a clue .....you just plain haven't got a clue....

[Stirling]

"Just because A Woman might have POPPED Them Out Of Her *****. or A Man may have provided some ***** Do You Really Think This Creates Ownership??"


Actually it is how the laws are currently written that creates ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and have vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This is yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's very core.

For what it's worth I do agree with what you are trying to say, but until the system is changed to support the end result that you wish to see children will continue to be "property".  Creating financial accountability for both parents and structuring the laws to ensure that the child will be supported (rather than a redistribution of wealth from one parent to the other with no acountability) would be a good start.  Also, there should be a persumption of 50/50 parenting time with both parents being treated equally at the starting point of divorce (where women aren't magicly somehow the better parent).  

There should be nothing wrong with a level playing field and the removal of the financial insentives that the current system gives to the CP.  Remove those financial incentives and you will get agreements that better support and meet the needs of the children.

[SPARC Admin]

>You even see it
>from some regular posters here (and at least one admin) who is
>so worried about making the other parent look bad that they're
>refusing to do what's right - and then blaming the system.

I don't need to do anything to make my ex (or you) look bad. Both of you seem to be doing a fine job without any input from me.

[mistoffolees]

>That's a LOT of generalizing.
>
>Do you want to start this up again, Mist???  I'm sure no one
>else does.  But to 'quote' you, don't put words into our
>mouths.  'You even see it from some regular posters here (and
>at least one admin) who is so worried about making the other
>parent look bad that they're refusing to do what's right - and
>then blaming the system.'  That may be how you 'interpreted'
>it, but thru that entire thread, I never saw a regular poster
>ONCE saying they refuse to do what's right for their child.
>Their (and my) beef is desperately wanting to do what is right
>by the child, but the courts so often refuse to let them!
>
>GET IT RIGHT OR DON'T SAY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I didn't put words in anyone's mouth. I said that 'many' believe a certain way.

As for examples of not putting kids first? How about these:

- Someone arguing about providing a lunch for their kids when they have the kids overnight - just because they thought their ex was benefiting

- Several people arguing that child support should be set at survival levels - no matter how much money the NCP can afford to pay

- A number of people arguing that child support shouldn't happen at all.

That's just a couple.

[mistoffolees]

>Mist, you haven't got a clue .....you just plain haven't got
>a clue....

If you feel like discussing things rationally, feel free. Instead, I see you're back to your normal name calling to disguise your lack of an intelligent argument.

[mistoffolees]

>>You even see it
>>from some regular posters here (and at least one admin) who
>is
>>so worried about making the other parent look bad that
>they're
>>refusing to do what's right - and then blaming the system.
>
>I don't need to do anything to make my ex (or you) look bad.
>Both of you seem to be doing a fine job without any input from
>me.
>


If you feel like discussing things rationally, feel free. Instead, I see you're back to your normal name calling to disguise your lack of an intelligent argument.

[mistoffolees]

>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that creates
>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and have
>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This is
>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's very
>core.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've seen say that the child's interest is a major (if not the overriding) factor.

For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?

[olanna]

" Several people arguing that child support should be set at survival levels - no matter how much money the NCP can afford to pay"

Yep. And if there is any "extra" awarded it should be called what it really is...alimony. And the person receiving the benefit of that extra money "should" have to pay taxes on it.  Maintaining a lifestyle for a kid is a joke...what do kids want? Maintaining a lifestyle for an entitlement kink or queen is really what those large CS awards are all about.

[mistoffolees]

>" Several people arguing that child support should be set at
>survival levels - no matter how much money the NCP can afford
>to pay"
>
>Yep. And if there is any "extra" awarded it should be called
>what it really is...alimony. And the person receiving the
>benefit of that extra money "should" have to pay taxes on it.
>Maintaining a lifestyle for a kid is a joke...what do kids
>want? Maintaining a lifestyle for an entitlement kink or queen
>is really what those large CS awards are all about.

But it's obvious that having more money in the household is better for the child. It's also true that not everyone is as dishonest as you're claiming, but that's not the point.

I realize that it's hard for you to stand, but poverty level isn't much of a life for a kid. If the parents can afford more, then making the kids suffer just because you don't like to pay support or you're afraid you can't account for how every penny is spent is selfish.

You've just managed to provide an example of what I was saying. Apparently, saving a few bucks is more important to you than the well-being of the child - just as I said.

[olanna]

"You've just managed to provide an example of what I was saying."

And you provided an example of what I have been saying..you really don't have a clue. You know nothing about me or my situation, but in your posts you pretend to be in god mode.  You seem to be sure that every child is suffering if the NCP isn't paying huge sums of money in CS...and you pretend to know that every NCP that doesn't want to be the victim of a huge CS award is doing it to save a few bucks.

[mistoffolees]

>"You've just managed to provide an example of what I was
>saying."
>
>And you provided an example of what I have been saying..you
>really don't have a clue. You know nothing about me or my
>situation, but in your posts you pretend to be in god mode.

Actually, I know what you've posted. And you've posted that you don't mind if kids are left at poverty level even if NCP is extremely wealthy.

>You seem to be sure that every child is suffering if the NCP
>isn't paying huge sums of money in CS...and you pretend to

I never said any such thing.

>know that every NCP that doesn't want to be the victim of a
>huge CS award is doing it to save a few bucks.

I don't know about 'every NCP'. I do know what you're arguing - that as long as the kids are at poverty level, NCP shouldn't be forced to pay child support no matter how wealthy they are. Your position is clear - NCP's protecting his/her wealth is more important to you than the welfare of the kids.

THAT Is why you don't like the system. There's nothing wrong with the system at all - it's just that the judge thinks that a wealthy NCP should support their kids and you don't like that.

What a shame.

[olanna]

You have no clue as to why I don't like system. You think you do but you don't. And really? It has nothing to do with CS.

[mistoffolees]

>You have no clue as to why I don't like system. You think you
>do but you don't. And really? It has nothing to do with CS.

I can only go by what you've written. You've consistently stated that getting a child to poverty level is enough and any child support should not exceed poverty level.

So it's YOUR position I'm quoting. If that's not accurate, then you're the one responsible because you're posting something that doesn't represent your views.

[olanna]

I've consistently quoted that the system isn't working...and HIGH CS awards are unfair.

You are funny...I am responsible for your understanding (or misunderstanding) of my posts?  

Give me a break.

[mistoffolees]

>I've consistently quoted that the system isn't working...and
>HIGH CS awards are unfair.
>
>You are funny...I am responsible for your understanding (or
>misunderstanding) of my posts?  
>

I've simply quoted you - and you keep confirming that I'm right. In your view, NCP should only have to pay enough CS that child is at poverty level and anything more than that is unfair.

It's not a matter of misunderstanding anything - it's a matter of your continuing to prove that your selfishness takes precedence over the needs of the children.

[SPARC Admin]

>If you feel like discussing things rationally, feel free.

Thanks, but I don't need your permission. And if rational discussion is the topic, you aren't qualified to comment.


>Instead, I see you're back to your normal name calling to
>disguise your lack of an intelligent argument.

Still having trouble letting go, huh mist? It's amusing to see you get your knickers in a knot over things like this, when you won't (can't) answer any of the questions I asked you. lol

[olanna]

Did you lose a bunch on the slots again and need to bump the CS to pay off yet another maxed credit card?

You guise it as selfishness on my part when truth is, poor M would be in a tent if he hadn't of met me because your gambling addiction is out of control.  Why don't you just let us raise those boys in a STABLE house and quit following me around as if you are some guy promoting high CS awards for the sake of the children???  

If you had all of M's salary, you still couldn't make it and the kids are suffering because there is never any food in the house, and half the time, they come to us dirty and filthy...after riding in a car for hours from the casino.

[FatherTime]

Sappy and generalized to the hilt.  

If it was as easy as you attempt to make it appear to be then there would be no SPARC.  There would be no need.  

There are real issues, real demons, real discrimination, and really greedy people in this world.  What are you smoking?

It is NOT as easy as you make it out to be. "Simplify Man!!!" Just doesn't cut it.

I don't have to give reasons, I don't have to justify my position, I don't even have to respond to this post, except that I want potential readers to see that it may not be them, that it may be a discrimination, greed, ignorance (IGNORANCE), bias, self-pity, attention grasping, and many, many other reasons for people and their trouble with or without their children.


I think that I understand why your previous post became so twisted over "stupid $%it".  

So I should allow my daughter to grow and thrive without me?
THAT'S WHAT HER MOTHER WANTS.  I should just be the bigger MAN and walk away, because that's in my daughter's best interest? (according to whom?)

There are too many variables to be so simple minded.

It's ...
FatherTime

[hagatha]

>
>>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that
>creates
>>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and
>have
>>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This is
>>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's
>very
>>core.
>
>Nothing could be further from the truth.

Are You Kidding Me???

>In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the
>child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They
>courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've seen
>say that the child's interest is a major (if not the
>overriding) factor.

Can you explain how or why the court would not start at 50/50. Why isn't the court looking at a fathers role in any childs best intrest. The standard we have all seen is EOW and maybe 1 or 2 dinners midweek. And if the CP has a problem and decides to disregard the CO there is no real penality. Visitation interference is a slap on the wrist but if support isn't paid, even if the NCP really can't afford the amount the court can issue arrest warrents and the NCP can be jailed. (please don't tell me there are recourses for those ncps that can't really afford the amount ordered. I have seen time and time again the court making a CS decision based on the CP's word and not the actual facts. I have also been there when a father (my DH) was told "empty your pockets or go to jail) because he was out of work after a heart attack. We filed for a mod once he was out of the hospital but the hearing date was 4mths later and his ex decided she didnt care. Should he have gone to jail? I had given him $200. I borrowed from my parents to get a car part we desperately needed on his way home. He was forced to use that money and we were stuck without a car. BTW the cp choose not to work and rely on us for 100% of the support for their child. Please expain how this is fair or works.........


>
>For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the
>children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a
>guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?

Have you ever heard GALs that are paid by the courts? Or have you heard some are paid by parents? Have you ever heard of any GALs promoting the parent that pays them? Or a GAL that might be biased and will report a parent better simply because of their gender???

The system is flawed and claiming there is no real problems is just ignorant


The Witch

[mistoffolees]

Once again, you find yourself incapable of rational discussion, so you launch yourself into your fantasy world and make personal attacks which are completely unfounded.

Feel free to provide a rational discussion if you'd like.

[mistoffolees]

>>
>>>Actually it is how the laws are currently written that
>>creates
>>>ownwership of children.  Children are merely property and
>>have
>>>vertually no rights under the current legal system.  This
>is
>>>yet another example of how the systems is flawed at it's
>>very
>>>core.
>>
>>Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
>Are You Kidding Me???

No. For the reasons I already gave.

>
>>In most cases, the courts are directed to keep the
>>child(ren)'s interests in mind when making a decision. They
>>courts are not perfect, of course, but all the laws I've
>seen
>>say that the child's interest is a major (if not the
>>overriding) factor.
>
>Can you explain how or why the court would not start at 50/50.

Many courts do - and the number is growing. What's your point?

>Why isn't the court looking at a fathers role in any childs
>best intrest. The standard we have all seen is EOW and maybe 1

Most courts DO consider the involvement of the father to be in the child's best interest.

>or 2 dinners midweek. And if the CP has a problem and decides

I can't comment on your specific situation - nor does one specific problem make the entire system worthless.

>to disregard the CO there is no real penality. Visitation
>interference is a slap on the wrist but if support isn't paid,
>even if the NCP really can't afford the amount the court can
>issue arrest warrents and the NCP can be jailed. (please don't
>tell me there are recourses for those ncps that can't really
>afford the amount ordered. I have seen time and time again the
>court making a CS decision based on the CP's word and not the
>actual facts. I have also been there when a father (my DH) was
>told "empty your pockets or go to jail) because he was out of

And, yet, statistics show that this is rarely a problem.

>work after a heart attack. We filed for a mod once he was out
>of the hospital but the hearing date was 4mths later and his
>ex decided she didnt care. Should he have gone to jail? I had
>given him $200. I borrowed from my parents to get a car part
>we desperately needed on his way home. He was forced to use
>that money and we were stuck without a car. BTW the cp choose
>not to work and rely on us for 100% of the support for their
>child. Please expain how this is fair or works.........

If I had ever claimed that the system was perfect, you might have a point.

>
>
>>
>>For that matter, guardian ad litems are provided for the
>>children in many cases. When was the last time you saw a
>>guardian ad litem provided for a piece of property?
>
>Have you ever heard GALs that are paid by the courts? Or have
>you heard some are paid by parents? Have you ever heard of any
>GALs promoting the parent that pays them? Or a GAL that might
>be biased and will report a parent better simply because of
>their gender???

None of that is relevant. The fact is that courts often assign GALs - which is proof that the children are not being treated like property.

As for the payment, you do realize that the courts don't have any money except what they take from the people, right? So if the court feels that a GAL must be assigned, that someone has to pay for it. Right?

>
>The system is flawed and claiming there is no real problems is
>just ignorant

I never claimed that there were no problems.

[speciallady]

Mist, you've been spouting that while the system is flawed it's not broken.
Now I read...
"There's nothing wrong with the system at all " in another post.

Make up your mind, okay?

[mistoffolees]

>Mist, you've been spouting that while the system is flawed
>it's not broken.
>Now I read...
>"There's nothing wrong with the system at all " in another
>post.
>
>Make up your mind, okay?

I have argued repeatedly that the system as a whole is workable even though it's not perfect. It can be improved, but working to improve the system is far preferable than arguing for completely scrapping the system (partly because the system works most of the time and partly because the chances of modifying the system are infinitely better than the chances of scrapping it and starting over).


My position is quite consistent.

[SPARC Admin]

>Most courts DO consider the involvement of the father to be in
>the child's best interest.

If that was true, this site wouldn't exist. You really DO live in a different world, don't you?


>I can't comment on your specific situation

Of course you won't. You'll just completely disregard her experiences because they don't meet your high standards of 'fact finding' criteria. *cough*

[SPARC Admin]

>My position is quite consistent.

Consistently myopic, misguided, and lacking merit.

[mistoffolees]

>>My position is quite consistent.
>
>Consistently myopic, misguided, and lacking merit.
>

Your lack of a rational response is noted.

Are you ever going to get tired of posting nothing but personal attacks?

And are you ever going to learn to listen to the opinions of others - even if they differ from your radical 'do it my way or you're wrong' mentality?

[SPARC Admin]

>Are you ever going to get tired of posting nothing but
>personal attacks?

I'll tell you what I'm getting tired of- I'm getting tired of people emailing me and sending me PM's requesting that you be booted or told to give it a rest. I normally have a strong tolerance for this kind of thing, but I'll be honest- if enough people express those sort of feelings it's hard for me to ignore them.


>And are you ever going to learn to listen to the opinions of
>others - even if they differ from your radical 'do it my way
>or you're wrong' mentality?

Funny you should mention that...tell me, is it okay if I "listen to the opinions of others" who are sick and tired of your constant crap-fest and argumentative nonsense? Is it okay if I listen to them, instead of just you?

Please let me know, because I've had a half-dozen emails and PM's just today, all from different people, all complaining about you turning this board in the "All-Mistoffolees, All-The-Time Show".  Maybe you need a vacation or a few days off.

[olanna]

I am glad to see you finally got internet in the house, Janet.  You do know if you don't pay the bill, they will shut it off, right? Just like they cancelled your car insurance.  I'll put up with you following me around here; at least I know they boys are sitting in your miserable little car for hours while you drive to the casinos.

[mistoffolees]

>I am glad to see you finally got internet in the house,
>Janet.  You do know if you don't pay the bill, they will shut
>it off, right? Just like they cancelled your car insurance.
>I'll put up with you following me around here; at least I know
>they boys are sitting in your miserable little car for hours
>while you drive to the casinos.
>
>


Hey, Admin---

While you're attacking me and telling me to cut it out, why is it OK for your moderators to post crap like this? Is it any wonder I get defensive when you and your moderators do nothing but spend your time attacking me?

[SPARC Admin]

>While you're attacking me and telling me to cut it out, why is
>it OK for your moderators to post crap like this?

This may be hard to believe, but the Moderators here are human and have feelings and opinions just like you. This isn't Divinity School and they're under no obligation to turn the other cheek. And frankly, how do you know what I have or haven't told them? You have no idea, so please don't assume facts not in evidence or pretend to know everything goes on here. There are a lot of things here that you aren't privy to.



>Is it any wonder I get defensive when you and your
>moderators do nothing but spend your time attacking me?

It's an offensive and provocative lie for you to claim that they "do nothing but spend their time attacking you". Most of the time they're busy helping people, but if you want to argue with them, don't get your panties in a bunch if they argue back. You may not be used to people who disagree with you, but that's not their problem. As unfair as it sounds, they're as free to speak their mind as you are.